From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Engineering problems?[edit]

It seems to me like this kind of thing would have a lot of engineering problems. An offshore platform is one thing, one big enough to sustain a decent population and have some kind of production to make it possible for it to have an economy is another. It seems like there's a lot of untapped "this is what you are forgetting, numb-nuts!"--Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most critics are so struck by the incredibly dumb libertarianism of its proponents that they sort of forget the enormous engineering challenges in such a project.
Just the costs ensure they will always be pipe dreams. Any serious seasteading project will be an enormous money sink for at least one or two decades, as construction slowly works out the kinks. Given the general stinginess of libertarians, it's likely that such a project would be mostly dependent on a handful of wealthy investors, for whom it'd be a pet project they don't necessarily expect to see any return on. Long-shot projects that rely on narrow funding sources tend to die. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to underscore that point, do read the tale of (mildly hilarious) woe that is Reddit Island Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 08:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the amazing stupidity and low chance of it happening are apparent enough, but I don't think the engineering problems are ever really talked about, and I think someone with some engineering experience could give some good ideas, which I think would Rationalwiki-ify this article pretty well.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The lamentably high costs is one of the major reasons, why we're not on the moon, in space, under the sea or on the sea (in colonies, habitats, plattforms and the like). Pity that, in the sci-fi it looks rather cool and flashy and the enegneering problems are just an extension of the "it costs a fuckton" problem (and even the high costs problem could've been solved with some amount of creativity)... *sigh*--Arisboch (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

More failures?[edit]

There's the external link on the Freedom Ship project. Is there a handy list anywhere of initiatives of this sort? - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some, if you start linkhopping from wp:Freedom Ship. There's wp:MS The World, wp:Blueseed, and several others that are mentioned in wp:Seasteading#Other (Lillypad, etc.)--ZooGuard (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bioshock Infinite[edit]

Would Columbia also be considered Sea (sky?) steading? It is a bit less libertarian and more overtly racist; worth mentioning here? Zero (talk - contributions) 13:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We have in fact mentioned Bioshock Infinite and skysteading in one of the footnotes in this article. Nullahnung (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps then it should be in the section instead of being a snarky footnote. Zero (talk - contributions) 13:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Libertarian Fantasy reference[edit]

What evidence suggests all seasteading concepts are libertarian fantasies? — Unsigned, by: Argus / talk / contribs

"libertarian": the people pushing them and the concepts used to support the ideas; "fantasy": the idea that this will ever work, as demonstrated by the results to date. HTH! - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Seasteads are not necessarily libertarian, it's just that for some reason the only people who push for them are libertarians. I would love to live in a semi-socialist community where complete secularism is the law. Every official must swear not be influenced by religion, and that all issues must be viewed from an atheistic-agnostic perspective. Somewhere where advances in technology and genetics are not limited by scaremongers who spread "gray-goo" type scenarios. Seriously, whenever someone begins to mention the use of genetic engineering, people will say "eugenics" and bring up Brave New World. In my opinion, Brave New World is a good novel, but then again, The Fellowship of the Ring is a good novel too, and nobody has suggested that we stop wearing rings for fear of the evil lord Sauron. And the difference between eugenics and liberal genetics is that while eugenics takes away your reproductive freedom, liberal genetics gives you more. They will say "ethical issues" and "morality". Is it moral to allow a child to be born with a genetic disease which will cause 15 years of agony before a painful death? Is it moral to allow a child to be born without legs? Is it moral to allow a child to be born with a mutation that causes low intelligence and will condemn them to the life of a street sweeper, and denies them the potential to have knowledge and to choose their own way in life? In a country where morality is humanist, morality clearly points towards helping these people in any way we can. Yet in an anti-progressive fundamentalist country where the people say that "morality cannot exist without religion", these poor humans, as at the mercy of chance as any other, will only be consoled by the false promise of escape into death. Nevertheless, actually constructing seasteads is the issue, since it is very expensive, and even the platform on which "Sealand" exists was built by the UK government for military purposes, and is a poor excuse for a nation. Still one can dream, no? --TeslaK20 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Big news on seasteading?[edit] Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Minerva[edit]

This is a wacky tale. This is a single source but it appears to be a reasonably usable one - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The WP article on Minerva ReefsWikipedia has 3 other references, 2 of which have good links. Bongolian (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This personal story contradicts a pile of details in the Cabinet article (e.g., the King didn't leave the boat) - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Pass the port[edit]

The problem with seasteading on giant ships - eventually the passports of all those on board will become time expired - and as they have deliberately absented themselves from the relevant states they will not be able to renew them, with all the inconveniences that arise; and the money will run out/they will not be able to access 'holes in the wall', or buy in new food and fuel etc etc. Anna Livia (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So what would happen when this situation arises? Anna Livia (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this assessment is entirely realistic. People, goods and fuel can in principle travel back and forth on service ships to the mother ship. Having one's passport run out is a problem for countries where one is not a citizen. But generally, if you're demonstrably a citizen of a country I think they have to take you back in. A lot of these wealthy libertarian-types are collecting citizenships as a strategy for avoiding laws or taxes they don't like. E.g. Peter Thiel who bought a New Zealand passport to add to his US/German citizenship. Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Likely to create a lot of 'interesting legal problems' - especially with a customs official deliberately confusing things.
And how would 'hatch, match and dispatch' be registered? For starters there is this.
Anybody looking for a topic for a legal degree thesis? Anna Livia (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Passing reference[edit]

Will mention [1] here as too obscure to have its own article. Anna Livia (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)