Seasteading for Climate Change

[Havet]

having already brought your attention to seasteading in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ultimate-solution-t107268/index.html?t=107268&highlight=ultimate+solution), here's another context for it.

SEASTEADING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (http://digg.com/d1v6YL)

http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1702/mf_seasteading_illustration_630.jpg


The idea of floating cities that could one day house climate change refugees is not new. There have been some older news regarding that solution in case rising sea levels force people out of their homes. It is with great hope that a new idea will be shared.

further on,


It was with this scenario in mind, that an interest idea has sprung. The Seasteading Institute has as a mission “to further the establishment and growth of permanent autonomous communities, enabling innovation with new political and social systems”.


One of the main engineering problems faced by the Seasteading Institute was precisely how to reduce the cost of floating platforms in order to make the prospec of living in the sea more attractive. These and other concerns are mostly addressed in the Seasteading Institute’s Frequently Asked Questions.


Such advances in floating platforms will reduce the cost of building those platforms and will allow for more of them to be built and to house more climate change refugees. Let us hope the cost will be even more reduced by further developments on this field.

Personally i think this is a great way of helping out climate refugees, provided we cannot stop climate change and the cost of building these floating shelters is reduced.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think the countries with the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions should foot the bill for building (and maintaining, at least until they're self-sufficient) such seasteads. I also think it would be expedient for as many seasteads as possible to band together and present a united front to the rest of the world - after all, they would have a lot of common interests.

[Technocrat]

Isn't this assuming that the refugees will be turned away by other countries?

[Havet]

Isn't this assuming that the refugees will be turned away by other countries?

i think it's assuming there will be less land to live on

[Klaatu]

They should be building these things in New Orleans, instead of rebuilding below sea level again.

[Technocrat]

i think it's assuming there will be less land to live on

That doesn't suggest that we should live on the water. These things look extremely costly for their intended function. If anything, the cheaper solution would be to create denser settlements on the land that are capable of accommodating more people.

I thought this idea was invented by a group of libertarians who didn't want to pay taxes? I think I remember reading something in Wired magazine to that effect.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't this assuming that the refugees will be turned away by other countries?

Well, if a country agrees to accept the refugees and they are happy with that, seasteading won't be needed for that pupose.

[Havet]

That doesn't suggest that we should live on the water. These things look extremely costly for their intended function. If anything, the cheaper solution would be to create denser settlements on the land that are capable of accommodating more people.

They look extremely costly and they ARE extremely costly. The seasteading institute, however, has managed to bring down the cost a bit further, with some new technology (you can read about that in their FAQ).

I'm not saying this should be THE solution, but if every other solution turns out to be more costly, then surely it is worth a try? This is why development in this area, to bring down cost, will be extremely beneficial, especially because if at one point, due to so many demand for land in the continent prices go very high, the existence of these alternatives will take the price down and take more people away from those overcrowded areas.


I thought this idea was invented by a group of libertarians who didn't want to pay taxes? I think I remember reading something in Wired magazine to that effect.

it was made by a group of people who are trying to bring down the cost of trying new alternative ways of running societies, and this means they are making it cheaper for libertarians, communists, anarchists-(insert adjective here) and other people to organize themselves as they want instead of needing to make a revolution or winning an election (methods which are extremely costly in human lives, and costly in time, effort and money).

[Revy]

My first thought is "What if hurricanes devastate them?" And of course, how to keep it stable and secure from the threat of earthquakes/tsunamis.

Also, I see no reason why it cannot be a "seascaper" (ocean version of skyscraper) in which the residential area continues downward and people live and work underwater. Putting an awful lot of work into just some platform would not be very useful in relation to the work and resources involved.

[Havet]

My first thought is "What if hurricanes devastate them?" And of course, how to keep it stable and secure from the threat of earthquakes/tsunamis.

Also, I see no reason why it cannot be a "seascaper" (ocean version of skyscraper) in which the residential area continues downward and people live and work underwater. Putting an awful lot of work into just some platform would not be very useful in relation to the work and resources involved.

yeah thats an excellent alternative, taking advantage of the sea below to house even more people. I'm still hoping for more developments on this so the prices go down (this still seems way too expensive)

[Technocrat]

My first thought is "What if hurricanes devastate them?" And of course, how to keep it stable and secure from the threat of earthquakes/tsunamis.

Also, I see no reason why it cannot be a "seascaper" (ocean version of skyscraper) in which the residential area continues downward and people live and work underwater. Putting an awful lot of work into just some platform would not be very useful in relation to the work and resources involved.

Sounds like that would be extremely costly. Why not just find a way to house more people on land? See my urbanates concept, for example. I've done some preliminary calculations that demonstrate that you could build urbanates with less money than we now spend on transportation alone!

I think these seasteading platforms could be built for research purposes, or maybe to have a resort on the water, but I don't see much point in them otherwise.

[Revy]

Sounds like that would be extremely costly. Why not just find a way to house more people on land? See my urbanates concept, for example. I've done some preliminary calculations that demonstrate that you could build urbanates with less money than we now spend on transportation alone!

I think these seasteading platforms could be built for research purposes, or maybe to have a resort on the water, but I don't see much point in them otherwise.

I agree. I read your thread on urbanates, I like the concept.