Difference between revisions of "Floating City Seastead"
(→Arguments Against) |
(→Arguments Against) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
# Easier for existing governments to put pressure on a large seastead than lots of small ones run by different people and spread out. | # Easier for existing governments to put pressure on a large seastead than lots of small ones run by different people and spread out. | ||
# Hard for subsets of population to do [[dynamic geography]] if it is one big structure. | # Hard for subsets of population to do [[dynamic geography]] if it is one big structure. | ||
| + | # Takes a big initial investment to get started, not very incremental. | ||
Revision as of 12:26, 17 August 2009
This page needs to be filled out with the arguments in favor or against a large seastead like Clubstead.
Arguments In Favor
- If many people go together on a large structure it should be easier to handle large waves.
- There is also a community of people so it is easier to have specialized jobs and social interaction.
- There are probably economies of scale in Internet access, power production, water filtration, and other systems.
Arguments Against
- Probably more costly than some other types of seastead.
- A 200 person community needs to have some rules and procedures. Could end up like a land democracy. The wrong rules could cause the venture to fail.
- Easier for existing governments to put pressure on a large seastead than lots of small ones run by different people and spread out.
- Hard for subsets of population to do dynamic geography if it is one big structure.
- Takes a big initial investment to get started, not very incremental.
