GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Land? The earth is covered 75% by water, shouldn't she be called Ocean?  (Read 7118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691

There are a few interesting articles about Patri Friedman from the Seasteding Institute being funded by the Gay enterpreneur Peter Thiel (Thiel is the guy who gave money to make Facebook grow):

http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201109/peter-thiel-billionaire-paypal-facebook-internet-success
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024761/Atlas-Shrugged-Silicon-Valley-billionaire-reveals-plan-launch-floating-start-country-coast-San-Francisco.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

"It goes like this: Friedman wants to establish new sovereign nations built on oil-rig-type platforms anchored in international waters—free from the regulation, laws, and moral suasion of any landlocked country. They'd be small city-states at first, although the aim is to have tens of millions of seasteading residents by 2050. Architectural plans for a prototype involve a movable, diesel-powered, 12,000-ton structure with room for 270 residents, with the idea that dozens—perhaps even hundreds—of these could be linked together. Friedman hopes to launch a flotilla of offices off the San Francisco coast next year; full-time settlement, he predicts, will follow in about seven years; and full diplomatic recognition by the United Nations, well, that'll take some lawyers and time.

"The ultimate goal," Friedman says, "is to open a frontier for experimenting with new ideas for government." This translates into the founding of ideologically oriented micro-states on the high seas, a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."


There is a lot interesting stuff on the website of the Seasteding Institute, the guys have also been busy to evaluate the legal aspects of swimming / artificial islands:

http://seasteading.org/research/law-and-politics

It seems that the Pink money has found its way to this kind of projects.
« Last Edit: Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 18:10 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Ulmovarda

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3

Building a floating island sound great but where would the resourse come from and where would it be build before it can go to its planed location. Who would pay for its expensive construction. And if all this success into the perfect result of a gay floating homeland then it could leave our people at a risk of attack. For im sure some Americans and islamic extremists would be united in using terror attack on us. We would have to need some kind of anti terror defence, what that could be im sure there are mainy ideas, from a missle system to stop planes missles to big brother state.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691

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. [..] Surface Area: 22 Square Kilometers (5,335 square acres) [..]

Well, that's a plan only. Nothing wrong with it, but plans and designs are known to fail and succeed. The reason why they fail is mostly the tremendous sums which are required for their realization, not the lack of technical feasibility. Methinks than if we were to build floating islands, the concept would be based not on one monstrum construction with decades of building time, but rather a multitude of smaller, easily built floating islets. They could be tied together with time and really form a large "congregation".

We need to go back to the idea of first a colony (or colonies) in a host country somewhere, then a gradual move toward independence. [..] From there, the path would lead out of necessity to seeking extra-territorial status, in other words trying to get gay people there (or ultimately everywhere) acknowledged as a separate nationality in and of its own.

You think lineary. ;D The strategy you have depicted seems the most workable to me, too, and shall be suggested for GHF's new official program. But one must always keep different options as a "plan B" in the drawer. This thread on swimming settlements is part of our "brainstorming" efforts to introduce new, slightly crazy ideas, which might as well turn out to yield viable solutions at last. I can imagine that somewhere, some Gays could decide to do exactly what Athrael is suggesting -- independently from our "official" plans. There are actually entire peoples living on floating islands in lakes -- the Uros. The question is, of course, how such projects can meet our needs to offer place for a substantial number of refugees. A possible solution is a swimming "mother ship" (floating island) which would serve as the basis for a number of houseboats/swimming farms. Such a "mother ship" can be anchored/thethered to the ground so it can't move away with wind or with current.

All indications suggest that floating platforms would be best situated within 5 degrees of the equator since hurricanes/typhoons do not spawn and cross the equator.  Also considering the applications of the OTEC and the difference in water temperatures at the equator (nearly 85F at surface level, about 40F and lower 1000 meters down) and the amount of water vapor in the air at the equator...

Such a platform should be better located not too far from any other point of civilization. Sure, in theory a swimming island can sustain a self-sufficient economy, but in practice this doesn't function this way. Goods and people must be transported from the platform to the rest of the world, and much of the economy is depending on the geographically next neighbours. It would be smart to locate the thing near the coastal line of a friendly nation to develope trade. Of course, the factors you described shall be considered carefully when choosing between locations. Hurricans and typhoons pose more danger than an occasional tsunami.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Athrael

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 50
    • Oceanic Project

Definitely The Pacific. From the date I started gathering recently it appears that the pacific, although less salty has higher concentrations of those minerals that are conducted to the metal when a charge is applied.

All indications suggest that floating platforms would be best situated within 5 degrees of the equator since hurricanes/typhoons do not spawn and cross the equator.  Also considering the applications of the OTEC and the difference in water temperatures at the equator (nearly 85F at surface level, about 40F and lower 1000 meters down) and the amount of water vapor in the air at the equator... The idea is there for not only power but also fresh water through condensation on the pipes - more water vapor in warm to hot air, the more water condensates.

Foam is rather cheap and there are landfills full of the stuff. Practical for say your first colony of platforms, but later on as the mariculture takes off (which I have been hunting and gathering info on, seems there is really profitable business in that field) and the use of plant material to make plastics one could somewhat easily sustain the process on "local" materials to build more.

In floating homes that use foam inside of concrete, the concrete is used to hold the foam in place, to provides mass way down low to keep the center of gravity as low as possible to prevent the thing from capsizing. and to provide a foundation to build the house on. Further those houses have a deep draft (sit low in the water) gaining more stability against small relatively speaking, waves.

Foam is used because even when saturated with water it still does not sink. Concrete is cheaper than a steel or fibreglass hull.

Costs? No matter which way you go it will cost you something. Solar cells would be a clean alternative to power even after you got your floating bit grown - so it could be considered and investment. Further they should be reusable if you decide to build, er, I mean grow more platforms.



According to obituary notices, a mean and useless citizen never dies.

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: Land Ideas (new and old)
« Reply #10 on: Fri, May 11, 2007, 11:01 »

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? ;)

It won't work. It will probably hit a rock somewhere and sink. We need to go back to the idea of first a colony (or colonies) in a host country somewhere, then a gradual move toward independence. As we have said in our agenda and elsewhere, there is no quick Gay Homeland. The way there will be time-consuming and likely span several generations until a true Gay Republic can be achieved. The only short-circuit to that would be if we, as an entity, can achieve a degree of world support (our aim) and then, based on that support, possibly convince another nation to provide us with a territory to call our own. From there, the path would lead out of necessity to seeking extra-territorial status, in other words trying to get gay people there (or ultimately everywhere) acknowledged as a separate nationality in and of its own.

As you can see, there's plenty of work ahead. Start by trying to win over some friends to the cause, one at a time, carefully and with conviction... from there we will be able to build momentum and make the future better for all of us.
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691

I'm more of a technical/engineering mindset - I love math problems more than "people problems".

You too?  :Q

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.

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.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Athrael

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 50
    • Oceanic Project

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
According to obituary notices, a mean and useless citizen never dies.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691

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.

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.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Athrael

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 50
    • Oceanic Project
Re: Land Ideas (new and old)
« Reply #6 on: Wed, May 02, 2007, 03:35 »

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? ;)
According to obituary notices, a mean and useless citizen never dies.

Athrael

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 50
    • Oceanic Project

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.

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"?
According to obituary notices, a mean and useless citizen never dies.

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262

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.
Stonewall was a riot.

Athrael

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 50
    • Oceanic Project

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.

All of the land is claimed, to be sure. It is owned. The ownership of Real Estate changes routinely. Even the sovereignty of whole countries changes from time to time, though that is hardly a routine matter. Sometimes the change is effected through violence and these episodes tend to be well remembered. It can take place peacefully however. The Kingdom of the Netherlands parted with the Virgin Islands quite amicably. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia was nearly as amicable (perhaps more so, since I don't recall hearing that any money changed hands). Acquiring territory for a Gay state will not be easy by any means. It certainly is not impossible though.

Some patches of land are easier to purchase than others; some patches of land are easier to democratically secede from than others. Clearly there are countries where the purchase or secession of land is quite impossible... the US comes immediately to mind (though there remain unincorporated territories that can be thusly separated even there).



Why yes there are peaceful leavings. However for the first time in human history we are having the most hated, the most loathed of people DARE to declare their independence.

I bet it will be anything but peaceful.
According to obituary notices, a mean and useless citizen never dies.

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262

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.

All of the land is claimed, to be sure. It is owned. The ownership of Real Estate changes routinely. Even the sovereignty of whole countries changes from time to time, though that is hardly a routine matter. Sometimes the change is effected through violence and these episodes tend to be well remembered. It can take place peacefully however. The Kingdom of the Netherlands parted with the Virgin Islands quite amicably. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia was nearly as amicable (perhaps more so, since I don't recall hearing that any money changed hands). Acquiring territory for a Gay state will not be easy by any means. It certainly is not impossible though.

Some patches of land are easier to purchase than others; some patches of land are easier to democratically secede from than others. Clearly there are countries where the purchase or secession of land is quite impossible... the US comes immediately to mind (though there remain unincorporated territories that can be thusly separated even there).

Stonewall was a riot.

Athrael

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 50
    • Oceanic Project

Although land is a great thing to have... I guess. I fear that all of the land, except Antarctica is occupied at this time. In some instances that occupation is rather violent, in others any contest to it would be explosive.

On the other hand there is about 75% of the world's surface covered by ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLFS is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to floating platform concepts.

Way back in World War II a plan was conceived where a concrete structure would be floated in the middle of the Atlantic that would be larger than any aircraft carrier yet built and would be stable since it would have a deep draft. Built out of concrete this platform would serve as a midway landing refueling depot for US military planes en route to the European Theater of WWII.

It was not built but the idea was seriously considered during and even after the war in the form of a commercial landing/refueling place for commercial transatlantic planes. Advances in Modern Aviation took place which made it possible for an aircraft to make the jump in one hop thus the idea was scraped. Partially.

In Norway and Canada homes are being built which float. These are unlike conventional houseboats in that they are virtually unsinkable. In Canada the houses are floated on concrete "cellars" which are reinforced concrete boxes pored around Styrofoam. If the concrete is cracked, broken or shattered the Styrofoam would still keep the house afloat at least long enough for inhabitants to leave - but most probably long enough to tow the house to dry dock to repair its "foundation".

This is actually a step up from the 1940's floating platform in that instead of being an "empty" hull or series of air chambers there is actually something inside that provides buoyancy in case the hull is compromised.

Granted the houses presently being built are designed for sheltered bays and marinas, however with few modifications and better planning these houses could be build for the wide open seas. Coupled together or even surrounded by floating deep platforms acting as break waters these houses as they float could be used in deep waters.

I do not know how viable it is to harvest the plastics buried in landfills around the world, I would assume there is a way to use those to make a “foam” product that would serve the purposes of floating platforms in the ocean.  I do know that concrete is strong, when reinforced with steel it is incredible in its properties. I do know that plastic chopped up and mixed in cement makes for an extremely lightweight concrete that if that plastic is more along the lines of strings increases the strength of the concrete as well.

I know that a plastic water bottle even completely full of water floats. The plastic is light enough to float – and that is basically all you need, a material that no matter how much it is broken still floats. Granted there are a few steps between a recycled plastic water bottle and a floating platform, however the imagery suffices to point out that mankind is throwing away a material that serves our purposes rather well. I envision a product that is manufactured with air bubbles, not plastic bottles exactly, but blocks which are whipped plastic purposefully trapping air bubbles and formed in blocks which could then be covered with concrete all bound together in a “cage” of reinforcing steel bars. Although the concrete could be smashed or shattered the steel and plastic would provide buoyancy until repairs are made.

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/rhiannonions/canada-2005/1129776780/pa190099.jpg/YES.html Gives us a pretty picture of a floating home. http://www.ecoboot.nl/artikelen/floating_houses.php For Holland.

The sea is a wide vast underused and over fished and mistreated resource that humanity abuses. For generations it was an obstacle to us, in modern times we plunder the depths with fishing trawls, and horrible methods to extract the oceans food resources without much care on how we are destroying the ecosystems.

Quite soon it will threaten the majority of the human population who decided to build their cities on the coasts and lowland and who decided to burn things.

A more modern and better approach to utilizing the seas would be to create large "farms" floating barriers or cages in which we would raise fish as food. Tuna is only one kind of fish that is favored by humans. We "harvest" quite a bit of tuna per year.  Imagine instead of going out in a boat and throwing a net over in hopes to catch tuna that a farm system floats out in the sea, raising tuna to feed the masses instead of fishing or even over fishing the wild resources which are presently being taxed to the limit.

That is only one kind of fish that is being fished for food. Other species are popular as well and given that they survive best in the ocean it would follow that we should build farms in the seas, utilizing the naturally “clean” water and space to raise crops of fish. Fishing is presently a catchall process that in more recent years has been called out for its practices of killing other species like the favored dolphin, over fishing and destruction of the ocean floor. An alternative is needed – now more than ever.

Present fish companies appear to not care how they get the fish, are geared as maximizing profit while ignoring the growing cries of the eco-aware people who want their fish to be brought out of the ocean and on to their plates with little to no damage to the ecology.  A fish-farm company can work that angle, calling more attention to the old fashioned destructive method of fishing while presenting their product as eco-friendly generating popularity and a consumer base.

The Sea is an untapped wealth of resources.

In Hawaii there is crazy old man (John Pia Craven) who dares to think of the potential of tapping into the cold of the deep ocean:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven.html

Refrigeration:
Cold seawater circulates through a closed loop of pipes that replace the coolant and compressor found in conventional air-conditioning units.

Irrigation:
Pipes carrying cold water run beneath fields of crops, sweating freshwater to irrigate plants and chilling their roots, promoting faster crop cycles.

Desalination:

Cold seawater passes through Craven's "skytowers," which contain closely packed radiator-like networks of pipes. The frigid pipes sweat in the tropical heat, producing freshwater condensate.

Power Generation:

Pipes draw warm water from the ocean surface and cold water from the seabed. The warm water enters a vacuum chamber and is evaporated into steam that drives an electricity-producing turbine. The cold water condenses the steam back into water for drinking and irrigation.

One very simple process providing four resources which can readily be adapted, indeed is perfectly designed for floating platforms. Fresh water and power would be the most needed resources for ocean platforms, this is taken care of in Mr. Craven’s design.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Floating resorts, floating condos are not a new idea.  http://www.freedomship.com/ The Freedom ship, a high class, ocean going Upper wealth class home is on the planning board. In this case the man will profit from secluding the wealthy away from the unwashed "poor" masses. But his plan is still a boat, granted a very large boat, but a boat of steel nonetheless.

His plan calls for the import of resources, food, fuel and materials. It would be a drain on the rest of the world. Floating platforms, fisheries and the like would be part of the global economy and as it grows and the technologies improve and a wealth of ideas are put into practice the floating city would become an asset, not a liability depended on the selfish rich.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Floating platforms can be made very stable depending on the depth of their draw. Boats and ships rock to and fro because their draw is as small as possible to enable them to travel over the surface. What would be needed for stable platforms is a deeper draw, the vessels hull would extend deeper into the ocean like a sea anchor. The bigger the platform the less it will pitch and roll with the sea waves.

Ships are limited in size today not because we do not have the technology or the designs for larger vessels, but simply because certain key canals for world's shipping are too small for larger sea craft. The Panama Canal determines the greatest size of cargo and naval vessels, not our ability and technologies.

I imagine a series of large platforms strung together with sea farms areas with concrete floats blocks on which nets are “hung” to encompass wide areas of the ocean water allowing smaller food fish to enter, allowing planktons, and water to circulate while holding the cash crop of fish.

Other partially submerged platforms could be used to raise shellfish, corals, sponge, seaweeds, and other shallow water life forms. The platforms would naturally draw sea life to them. We have witnessed how marine life is attracted to our accidental and even planned sinking of craft in the past. Tapping into that purposefully and for profit should not be too difficult.

Some of the floating platforms would be used for housing, while others would be covered in soil (from the ocean floor?) and land based plants could be used to create parks. A multi-storied platform with hydroponics to raise food crops, Lit and watered and kept at an agreeable temperature year round by Mr. Craven’s deep-sea water tapping processes. A floating “greenhouse” if you will. We already know how to grow plants and food crops in water rich with nutrients, we have learned through thousands of years how to raise crops and although in modern times we have used the cheaper “easier” methods of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and the like, we do have the knowledge to raise crops naturally. A floating platform 50 miles from the main land or more with dredged up sea soil is far enough way from land and free from a large percentage of the natural pests (insects, birds, etc) and diseases that land based farms deal with. The import of helpful insects like bees to a floating platform would naturally contain those insects that would not stray far from home. Further, placing those platforms on the equator would provide year round temperate climate to where crops could be raised year round.

Recycling is already known, what isn’t talked about is where human wastes come into the picture. Raw Sewage is treatable with natural “biological” systems that can be designed to not only provide food for plants but also to raise certain fish and other creatures which in turn can be harvested for human enjoyment. Presently most cities clean the sewage with chemicals and dump it into the water, many cities do not even bother with the chemical cleaning, they just pump the wastes into lakes, rivers and ultimately the oceans.

From the ocean itself we could not only raise fish, but other marine species, such as sea kelp. Kelp is popular as a “natural” product used in soaps and shampoos and other products. Sea Algae has its uses. A plethora of ocean harvested plants are used by humans and there is a market for other products as yet untapped and produced enmass.

Unike the Freedom Ship that would require national and international supplying of food, oil and resources, the floating city would generate exportable goods, have a tourist trade tapping into the wealth of visitors who would enjoy the sun and sea and the novelty of a floating city.

From San Diego we get an idea of just how large these platforms can be, and too how stable they can be. A plan, an idea is being considered to build a floating airport ten miles off shore in open water: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070114/news_2m14float.html

Its not just a thought by some man on the street, the Pentagon is seriously considering the idea for military use: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp961029/10290268.htm The rebirth of WWII ideas. From this article we get an idea of just how large a structure can be built:

Each of the 300- by 500-foot platforms that would be linked to form the mobile base could be built for perhaps $300 million or less;…
and
Massive pillars would support the platform atop a pair of pontoons submerged about 100 feet beneath the sea's surface.
A series of thrusters attached to the pontoons would hold the platform steady in the water or could move it along at 8 knots in calm seas. Hickey said the structure would be so massive and its draft so deep that even in 40-foot seas it essentially would be motionless.



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Now we have the basics, we have housing, food resources, power and fresh water. It may sound like something from Jules Vern's Captain Nemo, but the reality is that there is 75% of the world's surface being ignored by a burdening human population.

In order to get to the point where man-made "islands" containing our ‘gay nation’ exists you will need to start as a corporation that aims at farming the sea and utilizing the sea effectively. Start off as a business and work toward sustainable ocean living.

Yes it would cost more financially than taking up land, however it would most likely cost a lot less than competing with the prejudice and bigotry that a land-based refuge will cause. People do not want homeless shelters in their back yard, they will not want gay communities springing up there either, in fact we can readily assume that a gay community would be disliked even more than a homeless shelter.

Financing such a program would come from donations at first. Those donations would be in the form of start up investment into a corporation geared toward development of fisheries and other business opportunities that can be had from the ocean. Under the guise of business very little would stand in the way of the development of this community until it is too late.

Based in International Waters the company could fly any flag it wants to, meaning it could tap into any country’s taxation and shipping laws/profits/incentives and use those to its advantage.

Again I stress that unlike other plans for floating cities, platforms, resorts, communities this would have to be geared toward sustainability and self-sufficiency. It mustn’t be a burden on the global economy, if anything it must contribute something in return. Self sufficiency in that it generates it own energy (Mr. Craven provides us with that) is able to raise all of its food, develops technologies geared at tapping into the oceans for products and materials. Having exportable products to generate funds from the rest of the world is an added plus.

There is an untapped wealth out there in a world where the population is growing faster and faster and fish provide a huge chunk of the food resources, a company based on fish farming will show incredible growing profits in future. A self sustained “green” farm that also taps into the ocean depths for cold water to generate fresh water and power would be viewed as eco-friendly in a world where eco-consciousness is taking the forefront of society.

If the dire predictions of starvation and shrinking arable land is even partially true in the Age of Global Warming, a tidy profit can be turned by a corporation or nation that takes advantage of planned placement and planned sustainability and farming the ocean efficiently.

It would be natural for that fish farm to be expanded, at first providing on site housing for its workers (I imagine there would be a large need for employees to run the farms) with housing would naturally be a need for community infrastructure, stores, theater, hospital, education, etc. Since those would bring more people it would naturally follow that other food resources would be needed and since the cost of shipping food from the mainland would be more than just raising crops onboard it would follow that other crops would be raised on board, and if it so happens that extra food is raised, it would only be natural to export that.

Of course all of this shipping of fish and other things, plus the transportation of people from the mainland to the sea based platforms would require ships. The company would be all but forced to invest into ship building and maintaining a fleet of vessels.

Since employees would have children (as the “natural order” of things go) then schools would be needed. As a unique ocean based platform it would naturally draw the attention of the oceanographic societies who would be keen to build research facilities and staff those with students and researches who would bring with them fresh ideas which most likely would improve the technologies, find other ways to tap into the wealth of the ocean. 

As the floating community grew it would naturally discover that its temperate climate, position in the ocean and how it offers a unique experience to any would be tourist would lead to hotels, casinos (international waters have no gambling laws) condos for those seeking an escape from the crowded land masses. Throw in scuba diving, marinas for privately owned boats you are faced with a need to expand while also generating more income.

Ocean water contains more than just H20, there are minerals, metals and “stuff” in there as well. For instance there is Gold in each gallon of sea water. Presently there is not an effective way to extract that gold, however it is there and sooner or later somebody will come up with a workable solution to extract that gold… and the rest of the other materials such as:

(from http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm#composition)

Aluminum, Silicon, Titanium, Copper… Just 4 of the elements contained.  I pick these because these elements are used in so many products. Not just copper wire and aluminum cans, but in a wide variety of products from paint to glass.

What other untapped resources are there on the ocean floor? Holland gives us an idea, a nation that is mostly reclaimed land from the ocean which grows a wealth of food. Sea floor soil is rich and can be used to grow foods. No need to scrape the soil off of the land masses, dredge it up from the deep sea floor.

It cannot be exclusionary in purpose; it would have to be open to straights as well, although care would be taken to insure that those straights would not be bringing the prejudices of the mainland nations.  I imagine that people like John Pia Craven serious researchers and thinkers would welcome the opprotunity to put their ideas to work if given the chance.

As a community that would be growing and be revolutionary in its purpose and place, it would naturally have to develop and research other programs toward sustained ocean living. We should assume that grants could be had from serious instites of learning if space is provided for their programs for marine studies. Another minor source of income that would also generate a need for expansion and secondary and tertiary growth based on the need to sustain a community of people with food, clothing, entertainment, healthcare, education, etc.  Many university cities although geared at higher learning is sustained by their secondary and tertiary businesses.

If you consider that in the next 50 years the oceans are supposed to rise 17 inches, and in the end of the century ocean levels will have risen by feet and that there is the possiblity that all of the ice will melt raising the oceans by hundreds of feet, there will be less land in future and we already know that the gays are on the top of the hit list when it comes to removing a people.

If gays are the first nation to float upon the rising waters, they will be the most likely to survive the coming changes. Not only surviving but also may be the leaders of saving humanity from as much suffering as it faces by pioneering an untapped potential which not only will provide housing space but also provide food and water resources in a changing world.

It is well known that the homosexual community is one with untapped resources. The commercial industry has just caught on to our untapped wealth and are now taking steps to target us as consumers. A smart company interested in tapping the ocean would naturally target the wealth of the gay community, taking on many investors who just happen to be gay.

If the company takes on the oppressed, offering not only a place of refuge but also job opprotunities, education, healthcare and a place to live so be it. It would be a natural extension of any business that considered the matter for any length of time.

Is this plan impossible? No. We already are doing it to some small scale. We have the technolgies to float concrete oil rigs, we have the technology to tap into the cold ocean depths. We have crossed the ocean in ships for centuries, we have a consumer base for products from the sea already in place. It is only a matter of tapping into those and utilizing what we know in such a manner as to make it reality.

I’m no salesman, I bet there are people out there who can sell the business side of this and make it reality. I bet there are revolutionaries who can see the need to start it up as a company, a business and to hide the real purpose so it becomes reality. I know that there are individuals out there who can afford small amounts of investment into a business.

I’m certain that smarter people can fingure out a way to spin this better than me.

The above is just a brushing against the subject, a mere thought a throwing out of a single idea compared to the potential application.

There us much more that can be used, other ideas which cross my mind as I write:

There are applications of plant material beyond mere eating, for instance plastic can be made from plant material, fuel (alchol) can be made from plant material  - when I say plant I don’t mean just land based plants, I mean the naturally growing planktons and sea plants in the oceans.

Fish oils, used by past generations for many purposes, they can be adapted and used today.
Sail boats, now regulated to pleasure craft, but there are designs out there for fixed wing designs which do not require a crew of 80 to 100 men raising and lowering sail. We presently do not use them because it is easier to use oil.

Not only do the tropics provide us with potential placements of towns and cities, but the rest of the ocean provides us with potentials, different latitudes bring with them different species of fish.


According to obituary notices, a mean and useless citizen never dies.
Pages: [1]   Go Up