Difference between revisions of "Single Family Seastead"
(→Arguments In Favor) |
(→Arguments In Favor) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
# There is no need for new government structures at the start as each SFS can just get some country flag like any yacht. | # There is no need for new government structures at the start as each SFS can just get some country flag like any yacht. | ||
# It is probably easier to [[tile]] together lighter weight SFS than large seasteads. | # It is probably easier to [[tile]] together lighter weight SFS than large seasteads. | ||
| + | # More "incremental" than others and so has a better chance of working. | ||
=Arguments Against= | =Arguments Against= | ||
Revision as of 12:23, 17 August 2009
This page should be filled out with the arguments in favor of a Single Family Seastead (and maybe some against).
Arguments In Favor
Some arguments at Vince Seasteading Views.
- A single family seastead should take less capital to startup.
- These can be more stable than boats that many families travel around the world in.
- A SFS lets each family decide where they want to go, so dynamic geography works at a fine granularity.
- There is no need for new government structures at the start as each SFS can just get some country flag like any yacht.
- It is probably easier to tile together lighter weight SFS than large seasteads.
- More "incremental" than others and so has a better chance of working.
Arguments Against
- Something just incrementally better than a boat might not change things much.
- Designing a whole new type of structure adds risk to the venture.
