GLR News and Information > Geography, Economy & GLR Politics

Land? The earth is covered 75% by water, shouldn't she be called Ocean?

<< < (2/3) > >>

Mogul:

--- Quote from: Athrael on Thu, May 10, 2007, 21:44 ---I'm more of a technical/engineering mindset - I love math problems more than "people problems".
--- End quote ---

You too?  :Q


--- Quote from: Athrael on Fri, May 04, 2007, 07:00 ---It was proposed and I believe may be in progress now, to take a sea mount and add to it using this form of concrete growing. Although there are many opinions about the legal aspects of this grown island, it appears that the opinion is such that the laws can be redifined to make room for new technologies.
--- End quote ---

The BioRock technology seems really working, and nothing more than metal switches construction and solar pannels are necessary. The use of a vulcanic mountain is problematic from the legal viewpoint, indeed, but legal aspects may be interpreted this or other way... For technics, we read on Wikipedia:

"Artificial surfaces are being grown using a process called mineral accretion. In mineral accretion, a low voltage current is applied to a metallic structure to cause limestone to accrete or build on the surface, upon which coral planulae can attach and grow. This greatly speeds the coral growth process on artificial surfaces. The voltage is low enough that it can be generated by floating solar panels or from wave motion."

Agreed, the solar pannels and metal switches cost money, too, but what with metal nets? These nets could be used to form bags designed to accomodate plastic foam or lightweight rubbish, and then be sunk with weights into water to the desired depth. Now the low voltage current be applied and the concrete around the metal net starts growing... What are we getting? A swimming reef!

Of course, additional swimming bodies would be required to keep the thing floating, but in principle this should work.. I imagine this technology be a combination of the Mineral Accretion technology with the genially simple concept of the Spiral Island. Introducing additional reinforced concrete beams would prevent the construction from the tragical fate of the Spiral Island. Pacific should be more suitable for such a construction, I guess.

Athrael:
If the nature of international law is to include that you meed a bit of land, then lets go steal us an island - even a rock sticking above the waters. Claim it an build around it.

I would like to draw your attention to Bio-rock.  In simple terms the notion is to use rebar (or other metal) charge it with a low DC current to grow sediments around it. It is cement in nature. 

It was proposed and I believe may be in progress now, to take a sea mount and add to it using this form of concrete growing. Although there are many opinions about the legal aspects of this grown island, it appears that the opinion is such that the laws can be redifined to make room for new technologies.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blhilbertz.htm and http://global24.fatcow.com/Biorock%20Mineral%20Accretion%20Technology.htm and lastly: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281641.html

Mogul:

--- Quote from: Feral on Tue, May 01, 2007, 03:30 ---While there is considerable merit in developing the oceans, international law as it currently stands is fairly adamant about the necessity of real, live dirt to a territorial state. There is always, of course, the possibility of a non-territorial state. Such things are generally considered 'terrorist groups' when they attempt to behave as 'real' states.
--- End quote ---

Not if they act smart, withstanding the temptation to enforce their own laws on territories belonging to enother states.  :L Once again I refer here to the Order of Malta, which is a very genuine entity, widely recognized and respected.

But you of course have right, that for law enforcement and physical protection of citizens and goods, a kind of physical substratum is required. This substratum may be a "territory" if it consists of rocks and soil, or it may be an "area" if we disregard the physical consistence of the substratum. A huge swimming platform would certainly be as convenient as an atoll, and even a number of smaller swimming facilities distributed over a water-covered area can form the physical backbone on which to plant the State. Mind you, this would be not much different from oases dispersed upon a desert -- smaller nests in a non-occupied, empty area. The main thing is that such facilities be suitable to accomodate a definite number of persons and supply them with food, water, energy and other goods necessary for a halfway comfortably living and economy. There are actually examples of entire peoples living on floating islands in internal waters (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_island and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uros). Should be therefore actually a larger group of people claiming a water-covered area as their own and actually living there, I have little doubts that their claims would be finally recognized as justified by the "international community."

However, the claim that oceans are in principle "free" for any land-forming activity, is not correct. It is clear that the competition for ressources is already there, and countries are fighting hard for fishery rights even on high sea. The "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" regulates in its Article 60 (8) that:

"Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf."

Article 87 guarantees the right to establish artificial islands on high seas under the same conditions as Article 60, whereby Article 89 says:

"No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty."

An attempt to claim a water-covered area as an exclusive economic zone would face no less fierce opposition from other States than an attempt to claim a soil-and-rock area on land. In short, by choosing water instead of land, the problem does not disappear. Which shall not mean living on water is not a viable option -- it simply means, some efforts on the diplomacy and military shall be undertaken, no less than in the case of land. Which puts us back to the issue of souvereignty as such - an entity either has it, or doesn't.

From the more practical point of view, floating islands are not "artificial islands" -- in the meaning of the law, they are "ships" and as such are indeed under the jurisdiction of the flag state. It is perfectly legal to create and populate them even for private citizens, by whatever technical means. There was a fellow who has put empty plastic bottles into huge nets and constructed a swimming island for himself - unfortunately, a storm has damaged the facility. But with appropriate technical consideration there should be no problems to create a stable construction, as Athrael has presented. In case we were to set up a non-territorial entity, such floating islands would be an option -- provided, they can be constructed at reasonable costs. I also would think that Pacific is definitely a much better place to consider construction of such platforms than Atlantic, simply because of the wells.

Athrael:
Oh BTW in case you are interested, there is already a plan on the board for a floating city which will hold  50,000 people.

http://www.tdrinc.com/nexus.html

If you don't go to the site let me copy and paste something that may be of interest to the topic:

Approximate Dimensions: 4.7 miles long by 2.5 miles wide (7.5 Kilometers long by 4 kilometers wide)
Surface Area: 22 Square Kilometers (5,335 square acres)

This is a floating city designed to accommodate 100,000 persons. 7 kilometers long and 4 kilometers wide with the capacity to be mobile, grow its own food, produce its own electricity and, owing to it existing beyond the 12 mile governmental jurisdiction boundaries, create its own government, income system and tax base. In essence, this mobile city becomes its own independent country.


My emphasis.

got your attention now? ;)

Athrael:

--- Quote from: Feral on Tue, May 01, 2007, 04:22 ---I would not bet against you.

Still, war (and everything that resembles war) is a waste of materials, money, and blood. It's best avoided wherever possible.

At this point in history I think the idea of independence is more important than the physical fact of independence. Once sufficient people have the idea, the physical fact will, in due course, be summoned up. Yes, we are probably the most hated and loathed people in the world. This is not one beauty contest I have any real interest in winning... perhaps there is some people other than the Gays that is more despised. They may have that prize if they wish to contest it. Still, we are a hated people. The hate is one thing. The "we" is quite something else altogether, and it is just as true as the hatred. We are a people. We can be an independent people. We can even be an independent state.

Might that be anything but peaceful? I do not forecast the future well (no matter how hard I try).

Before that point, however, we will have become more independent as a people and more aware of our existence as a people, and both of those are worthy attainments in their own right.

--- End quote ---

Wars are not designed to be "nice" their very nature demands that they be as horrible as possible, in that manner may we come to dread war so much that we will do anything else for peace but to make war. Us humans have made some mistakes, such as putting rules to the game of war.

We are at the top or the bottom of the food chain when it comes to bigotry. After all other minorities have the comfort of knowing themselves, while at the same time loathing the homosexuals even amongst their ranks. We are an equally hated people, hated not only by the majority of strangers but our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters even within our religions/cultural/race.

Time is running out. Perhaps Gays in the Free world do not see it as such because they live under the illusion that freedom is right around the corner. However there are a few interesting recent turn of events which should be heeded as a dire warning.

Although the 60's freed woman and the blacks, and civil revolutions were had by many, today gays are still barely tolerated and social changes have not kept pace for the homo-question as with all others.  We are being lead by a carrot on a stick, we are being lead down a rosy path where the eternal promise of equality is spread like manure on lawns. Might make the lawn pretty, but shit is still shit.

We are losing the War for Equality. Yeah sure we may not be presently rounded up and locked up, we may have the illusion of equality on some fronts, but the truth is that society is turning on us and we are being allowed to reveal ourselves not because there is tolerance, but because people want to know who we are, makes it easier to remove a "problem" when you know who that problem is.

The first being the startling and all but ignored turn of the American English Language - the definition of one tiny word - Gay.

It is not uncommon to hear something along the lines of "This is so gay" Meaning that something is bad or wrong.  Gay is not a negative associated with bad or negative things. Not just being a homosexual but just in general "bad" all around - it is the opposite of "cool".  My nieces raised around two gay uncles have no problem throwing out gay in this sense. Although they may not realize what they are doing, the thought is there and it has become a natural thing for them to toss gay about as if gay is all around bad.

If Gays were actually considered worth while would there not be an outcry of public affront of the use of "gay" in such a way? If a man drops "nigger" "Ho" or "nappy head" he is immediately publicly shamed, fired and persecuted. Current events, sort of.

The second being the push for a Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment. That is a huge negative and underscores the reality of the social mindset when it comes to us. So devoutly is it wished for us homosexuals to go away that for the very first time the people want an amendment that takes rights and freedoms away from the people, unlike the rest of the amendments and rights which are given to the people.

A President who is perhaps the worst in American history was able to use the idea of passing said amendment to win a majority vote, that majority comprised of people who do not tolerate homosexuals and who came out in record numbers so their voice would be heard on the subject.

Sure in one state of the Union Gay marriage is possible, but it being protested and contested again and again. While the rest of the states are passing LAWS which clearly define marriage in a manner to exclude homosexual peoples from marriage. In states that just afford marginal Domestic Partner ship laws, those laws are under attack, and there is a push to deny even the most basic of civil rights to domestic partners.

The idea of independence is long over due to be made into reality.  Unfortunately the gay community has the belief that human nature can change and that gays like blacks and other minorities will be accepted, some day. We deny ourselves the understanding that being gay affects people personally. After all a man doesn't have to worry that his skin color may change, or that he may become a woman, but he can (and many do) wonder or fear that the potential that he is "gay" is there. To compound that is the small fact that so many closeted gays live a life as straight then one day come out of the closet (or are pulled out kicking and screaming" To the average mind that is "proof" that one can be turned gay.

The reality is that there is a gut revulsion to homosexuality that is far stronger than looking at a different color of skin. The fact that humans do not know what makes a gay gay and the long tired myth that gay is contagious feeds a fear of homosexuals that will not easily if ever be removed.  The fact that nearly every church and religion has some admonishment to the homosexual makes the task daunting. Religious belief is a powerful motivator, so powerful that men will strap on bombs and blow themselves and other ups to make a "religious statement" so strong that people will drink poisoned cool-aide - so strong that people will discard out of hand the notion of Evolution and basic sciences which actually does nothing to subtract from the Creator.

Religious belief is a force to be reckoned with, we in the 21st century may poo-poo 'superstitious' nonsense like religion, but the human ability to cling to belief is a force that should never be underestimated. (For the record I am Christian  - I have a strong faith, but tempered with the realities of life ;) )


These two forces are strong in and of themselves, there are more motivators coming down the pike. Economic and physical world changes are coming.

We stand on the brink of economic collapse. The housing market is already way down, add to that the climbing energy rates and we are poised to see economic recession if not an economic depression. Oil is running out, or to word that better there are more people demanding oil that what we can pump out of the ground and each day more demand is being generated as more nations struggle for 1st world status, as more people are born each with a need for oil. This is not a situation that can be sustained for very much longer. In fact the pump price of gasoline is telling us far far much more than the media and "experts" are muttering.

Not only are we over 6.5 billion hungry mouths on earth, we are also entering the age of Climate change which if even the optimist predictions of mild, marginal changes are to be expected will amount to the mass movement of populations, will lead to the loss of a lot of fertile crop land will lead to starvation, huger, poverty and collapse of weaker nations and their economies.

These may be considered "signs of the times" but to those who have belief in religion they will equate these things as being the signs of the End. The End is known to all pretty much, although many may ignore it and their religion of choice, when the "signs" hit there will be a revival of sorts and religions will become more popular. Unfortunately along with that revival comes the "prophets" who will make certain to include who caused all of this, and it won't be Satan, it will be the Gays, Infidels and heretics.

Hitler didn't wake up one day and decide it was time to kill the Jews - no, Post WWI Germany, the Great Depression and other factor had a roll to play. Hitler did not sell the idea of removing Jews based solely on their religion, Instead he scapegoated them to the German people, he laid blame of the economic problems at the foot of "Jewish Bankers". Prior to that sales pitch was a change in language, basically amounting to calling a tight wad a "Jew" - "Don't be a Jew" related to "don't be a tightwad" That phrase carries over to us today - plus a few others.  Those came into being during the years leading up to the Nazi March. It is no "coincidence" that "gay" is taking on dark meanings and has become a popular, over used at that way to describe a negative.

Further it wasn't just the Jew that was rounded up, it was poles and GAYS as well. Although we were not a political threat we were on the hit list as well. In fact Gays are always on the hit list. Think of REX 84 - part of what was covered under that was the "gay disease" AIDS - Although not every gay has it part of the plan was to make sure that the Gay disease was not going to be free to spread around.  Under the disease containment and control parts of the FEMA Emergency management acts.

We already know that there are plenty of men who blame the Gays for the world woes. 9-11 was laid at our feet, Katrina was laid at our feet, The X-mas tsunami was laid at our feet - In that these "acts of God" are retribution for allowing the homosexuals to continue existing and the affording of rights to us is making God Angry. Throw in an "angry God" who is "punishing" the world through climate change and lack of food it will not take much to convince people that the Price of Modern Sodom means removing the "sin" from the heart of the world - in other words remove homosexuals.

As example, Few Christians, even bible studying Christians have read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah themselves, nor referenced the other books and verses which tell in detail the exact nature of the sins of those two cities, which homosexuality was NOT part of the list. Instead they buy into the tried and true myth-conception that these cities were gay and for that gayness God destroyed them. Trust I have spent a great deal of time on religious forums explaining based on biblical studies the realities of the "homosexual passages" and the believers will read and deny, being self confident that hatred of homosexuality is God's Will.

People believe these things. Sure there may be a "majority" outcry to the notion, but in their hearts?...

Civilization is a thin mask that is worn when things are going well. Look at New Orleans and how swiftly the mask fell off, even though help was out there and on its way, the people affected directly started losing hope, started looking at self preservation. Imagine the whole world being in a stew pot without any outside help coming. Worse the Media watching from beyond called black people taking food from stores as "looters" while making whites look like they were surviving and carefully calling them something else.

Gays are protected by the conventions of civilization. However the screams of "fag!" reveal just how thin that mask really is.

That mask is gong to be ripped off the face of humanity soon - very soon.  The time of "ideas" and "Ideals" has come to an end. It is a time of action and revolutions.

Maybe our brothers and sisters are not aware of what is coming? Perhaps our own "faith" and system of beliefs is blinding us to realities?

 Or perhaps we know thus we practice such self destructive behaviors such as continual drug use and alcohol abuse, such as tossing out the condoms and "bare-backing"?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page