Why live in the ocean? On land a lot of space and cheaper.
Oleg, try searches of the forum. This has been discussed extensively.
That was the case but land is becoming more expensive and as more people move to sea-homes there will be more companies making them. The price of living at sea is already comparable to living on land, we still need to work on the convenience factor. Now look into the future, 35 years from now. Expected population at 10 billion. That is 40% more than we have now and not really doing a very good job at feeding them all.
Why live in the ocean? Because the alternative is bloodshed. If we fail, our children will pay the price.
Good luck to you on land.
Thank you for your comment, and best regards.
At the oceanic business alliance we believe that there is no way around it.
If New Venice and New Atlantis (in multiple versions) do not rise ( to solve the most urgent issues) within this generation, and we keep trying doing business as usual on land, the planetary life support will fail, and human civilization will go back to the dark ages…
• The ocean counts for 99% of the space volume available to human expansion
• Only ocean domestication can feed the population we expect in the next 3 decades
• Only the minerals of the mid oceanic ridge can fuel our need for industrial and technological expansion
• As everybody is standing on everybodies toes development in many fields is slowing down instead of accelerating (narrow coded world comming to a grinding halt)
• Consider species the rivets that hold spaceship earth together - the rivets are popping out at a ALARMING rate we passed the point of sustainability back in the seventies.
Perhaps, it is a good question. More like a philosophical question.
The idea of homesteading comes into the picture.
There are more and more humans on the same land.
Competition for land is developed. No more homesteading in the USA,
the way to just occupy living space. People are born into the world, and
do not bring money or valuables to purchase living space. In the
US, there is still homesteading on land a person purchased.
There are many examples of people pushed out of the land where they
lived. Even homesteaders in the US deserts, such as Marshall South
on Ghost mountain in the Anza-Borrego desert of Southern-California
in the 1930s.
Mobility might be important.
Peacefulness might be important too. Life on the high seas requires
competition and fight with the elements of nature, not with fellow human
It also depends on your personal goals. I have done extensive documentation on I.M.T.A. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture. I see the feasibility of producing seafood without polluting the oceans further, without using grain-based feed, and also helping clean up and restore hypoxic regions, by utilizing the nitrogen rich nutrients to grow Kelp, feeder fish, market fish, abalone, crabs, etc.
actually the land is not that cheap in china, since the goverment owns all
Why pay taxes?
The main issue on land is that the number of people living in close proximity and living under favorable laws generate wealth and the cost of the land subsequently rises where this occurs as more and more people settle in the area, pushing up the cost of rental accommodation and house prices. This in turns creates a distortion. Either there are jobs and accommodation is expensive or there are no jobs and accommodation is cheap.
The advantage of the sea will be that a society can be created under very favorable conditions but without the drawback of rising land prices as the price will be related to a flexible resource (floating platform). A Seastead can therefore suck more and more people into it whereby each person can have a reasonable living standard and affordable living space. Although the initial cost of creating a Seastead might be expensive, if a big enough group of people live on a Seastead it will become easier to grow. It is therefore more difficult to grow to a first size of 10.000 people than to grow subsequently to a size of a million.
Seasteading has the following advantages over land based societies:
- Economy of scale will bring the price of accommodation down or at least stay the same for a m2. Even if society is growing, the cost should not vary to much.
- Low paid jobs can be better accommodated as salary in relation to a m2 of living space will be better aligned.
- If certain Seasteads fail and shrink there should not be a lot of empty accommodation as people will take their homes to a new Seastead. On land there is either a shortage of accommodation or their is a lot of empty accommodation.
I’m not sure that’s all accurate. Proximity still drives economic desirability. The same size room in a hotel may be priced differently based upon the view available from the balcony, or proximity to attractors and detractors like the bar or the elevator. A Seastead likely still has more and less expensive housing - for example under the water line, like “steerage class” accommodations in passenger liners of the last century. Penthouses will almost certainly still be more expensive than steerage.
For bullet point 2: there may be a better alignment, but there’s also probably a minimum “floor” or entry cost. At the end of the day you can lie down and sleep on completely unimproved land, but not on open water. You need something minimally floating.
Point 3 depends entirely on which vision of seasteading prevails- individual or family-sized accommodations, or the gated community mega-condo version.
That reminds me of when I moved to San Antonio during the housing boom. Housing prices all over the US in the big cities were huge. There was little room for growth, people were buying 2nd and 3rd homes as investments due to low interest rates and rising home prices and the idea that “real estate is always a safe investment”.
But San Antonio did not see the skyrocketing prices. The city was set up in such a way that there was plenty of room to expand outwards. And it did. It acted just like a successful seastead would. More houses were built in a circle outward. Housing prices stayed sane (they went up a little during the boom but not like the other cities that could not expand).
Thus pointing out that most of the cost of housing on land is due to regulation, not due to supply. Urban growth limits are another idea conceived with good intentions that is easily perverted and generally poorly applied.
Consider the possibility that people build a modular seastead. They builld in a circle around a lagoon made of the modules. The first 10-20 modules have unfettered direct access to the lagoon, and also to the outside. After that, they have to start “stacking” them deeper. Some ‘originals’ may indeed be happy that they are getting a deeper buffer against the open ocean. Some may not want their view of the waves cluttered. Either way, they almost certainly charge a connection and access fee to anybody who wants to connect to them and traverse them to other modules or the lagoon. There are costs involved in designing and building for connections, after all. There are also opportunity costs involved in having one type of business or another next to you, and likewise with neighbors residing there. You want to have some kind of filtering mechanism that provides good neighbors (incidentally, this is known as a “barrier to entry” no matter who you are filtering for.) Once you’re 3 deep, you no longer have much control over who connects next. You’re also no longer as easily mobile as you were when it was just you in a ring around a lagoon. Over time, some areas of the assemblage gain a distinct character. Some more business, and some more residentially oriented. Some with lots of restaurants and entertainment options. People will find various degrees of desirability based on that character.
At some point, it makes sense to create another community, which means starting from scratch again with mooring and attracting a minimum number of people to support safety and services. Rinse and repeat.
The one thing that seems less likely to be a constraint on water than on land is inconvenient (for construction, but sometimes desirable for aesthetics) geographical features like slopes, hills, canyons, and river/lake boundaries. But the inference one has to make is that there is NO premium “land” or area which is naturally well-suited to build on; it’s all sub prime because it all needs a lot of work (in the form of building a platform) before it is habitable, like a sub prime piece of real estate needs a lot of fill or dredging prior to being useful. And that’s not to say that bottom geography is absolutely not a factor- you may moor fairly deeply but still run out of seamount platform within the necessary X hundred feet of the surface (depending on mooring design) Then you have an “urban growth limit” there as well.
Folks, I am ALL FOR this idea but feel compelled to poke holes in fantasies and rose-coloured thinking. Constraints don’t magically disappear with rainbow sprinkles on top of the water.
At best we get different kinds of constraints.These different constraints may be more favorable to our personal preferences. Economics is not about MONEY. Economics is about resources and human behavioral choices in allocating those resources. Economic principles are equally valid on land, in the water, or outer space.
Short video about TSI, not bad…