Well, heck, Mr. Scofflaw… Screw the authorities and launch that sub, see what happens…
The Jones Act is an example of excellence why oceanic interference freedom is needed and how politics is crippling development all over the planet … seasteading can be the cure.
Hypothesis: Real estate squaremeters can be produced more economic on the ocean than on land
… but NOT without land-based industrial infrastructure and resources.
There IS a design and plan to incorporate seacrete, building a hull. HOWEVER, that requires materials from existing land-based industries, both to make and to fit. It is impossible to build a structure, the industrial capabilities, and make products from raw seawater, or dolphins and Octopi would have evolved doing so, and there would have been no evolutionary imperative leading to humankind, land-based tool-making creatures.
So, here we are, planning to build, using land-based infrastructure, to build seagoing vessels.
Why must Elmo’s posts always include a commercial link to his web site …
… where Elmo solicits money from
Does a comment thread exist that does NOT have a commercial link from Elmo?
Building anything on stilts or landfill base on a shallow spot is a pointless experiment that has been done already | Floating and a potential to settle open and deep water is a kind of minimum requirement.
• it makes no contribution to solve the ocean colonization technology botttleneck
• It is no step forward in the evolutionary line of seasteading
• It does not get you trough phase1 key conversation and leaves you with reaction A
context | sandbank real estate building in large scale
It’s not as pointless as you claim. These shallow waters could be used to establish a stable base for floaters to attach to. If you want to realistically think about seasteads, you have to understand that most floating cities will not really be floating. Any airport, mining operation, communication towers will work better when their location is fixed. It’s also likely that, at least in the beginning, any floating city will be safer if it is fixed to the bottom of the floor. Later when the technology progresses it might be possible to build true floating cities, but doing this a this point is just unrealistic.
The concept : starting with something people are familiar with already (beach real estate) - and then take it a small (but essecial) step further (floating real estate)…
What is “pointless” is Elmo continuously spamming the comment threads with commercials for his phony “investment” schemes.
Because … his schemes still haven’t yielded return on the previous investments.
Otherwise we would see PROOF in the form of an existing, functioning seastead community.
Notice how all of Elmo’s comments ultimately point to a COMMERCIAL for Elmo’s phony “investment” scheme.
Hawaii’s shipping difficulties are caused by its distance from the great circle routes, not the Jones Act. Routing a ship from east coast Asia to Hawaii and on to the U.S. is more expensive than it’s worth for most shipping because you’re adding a lot of unnecessary distance.
Hawaii’s shipping problem is caused by their lack of a facility to handle the modern mega-carriers. We already discussed that.
Maybe we’re talking past each other. I’m talking about using a feeder ship with a crane to transfer containers from a bigger ship to itself.
Actually, I’m just confusing threads. Sorry about that.
The problem is arranging to have your specific load as the last X units of thatega-carrier. They are loaded for weight and balance, not location.
The Hypothesis : (coined on one of the threads)
Oceanic Real estate is ok with a life span of 15 years as some landhouses do not have a longer lifespan too.
Consider this might be a thought error - because what you need to look at is the lifespan of the city itself and its foundations (so the building plot) which on land is eternal. Not the lifespan of a individual home. Cities that are not built on “eternal foundations” like New Orleans (or Venice sinking slowly deeper) get big problems very soon.
So let me coin the counter-hypothesis: We do look for a technolgy that solves this bottleneck
A city doesn’t have a single built foundation, it has thousands of them, and they get replaced quite often. Often enough, the land itself is r-sculpted over the decades. Filling, trenching, canals, overpasses, bypasses, bridges, sewers, power lines, water lines, gas lines, high rise buildings requiring the entire footprint to be excavated- There’s no single eternal foundation to a city, not even the bedrock.
There will NEVER be a floating solution as static as continental land masses. Chasing it is foolish and bound to fail. Even if one only considers sea CITIES in the seasteading movement, they still are unlikely to exist upon a single platform. You won’t get past a village that way. It simply doesn’t scale that large. Barring actual anti-gravity technology, you’re not going to have a single floating structure that grows as wide or high as a city, even if you consider sub-surface volume.
So multiple platforms in some kind of proximity to each other are required to form cities. If any given one gets replaced in 20, 50, or 100 years, it matters little. Comparing a seastead platform to a city is ridiculous. Comparing it to a building is much more accurate, with the attendant lifespan (often determined by new technology rather than absolute zero utility) and maintenance tasks, costs, and constraints of a building.
@thebastidge | Larry thanks for making your points…
• We don´t have to “versus discuss” the lifespan issue until somebody is “winning the argument”.
• The investors will take that decision on base of what they think is a valid point and what a pointless argument.
• In Seasteading EVERYBODY can have his way - one seastead can be built on base of old rusty steelbarges with less than a decade lifespan - another on eternal concrete honeycomb foundations (bringing a solution to the postulated technology bottleneck). The markets will decide which is the better way - not fierce forum versus discussion.
• One of the Seasteading key values is “stop fighting” - the ocean is big - thousands of different models to create settlements on and in it can, and will be tested.
• If you think you can make it through phase 1 key talk and get effect B on a rusty steel barge - you should build up a project doing right that - you have my moral support . I will watch your project closley while doing things as the oceanic business alliance is doing things until somebody comes up with a better idea and we get convinced of it. (not by forum discussion - by practical results).
• This is how progress and development works in post enlightenment times leaving medival scholastic discussion behind - ( scholastics is putting the focus on “fight and opinion groups” without caring much for widening the fact base and keep an open mind on everything… )
• It is one of the funny things about seasteading that it is a movement holding up the banner of Enlightenment while having the most scholastic fightgroups on the forums … entangled in useless versus discussions for nearly a decade now …