34 Comments
author

I've recently changed my mind about this - it may be even cheaper to first build insulation and then pour water into it and freeze that water. This avoids the need for trips to the Antarctic, underwater construction and nuclear power.

Expand full comment
Aug 24·edited Sep 2Liked by Roko

Amazing idea! Wild to think there could be new iceberg city-states in the future.

Also seems like something tech billionaires would be interested in.

Have you tried pitching this? I bet some wealthy investors would fund research into scaled down replicas of this.

Expand full comment
author
Sep 5Author

I will try to pitch this in October

Expand full comment
Aug 2Liked by Roko

Thank you for putting this together. Seems like a great idea.

> Once in place it can probably be anchored to the ocean floor via lots of quite beastly cables. Whilst expensive in an absolute sense, I don’t think these will be that expensive per km² of land, as long as it is not anchored in a place with particularly deep water and strong currents.

Could it be kept in place with the sails? Or perhaps moving slowly to keep perfect temperature year-round?

Expand full comment
author
Aug 2Author

Thanks!

I don't think you want to move it around once it's in place. I think you want it keep it in one place for the political reason of wanting to claim ownership over that part of the ocean.

Expand full comment
Aug 1Liked by Roko

Is this really worth it? This land will have no natural resources, you cannot have agriculture. You can just colonize the Australian outback instead.

Also, recovering land from sea in existing coastal countries is cheaper and more valuable - already near high value real estate.

Expand full comment
author
Aug 1Author

> you cannot have agriculture

Why would you want agriculture? Agri-products are very cheap. There's no reason to produce them yourself when you can just buy them.

> no natural resources

Why would you want resources? Ores and the like are also very cheap. Why are you taking such an interest in these low-margin, low-value industries? You want tech companies and chip fabs and robotics plants, not farms and mines.

Expand full comment
Aug 1Liked by Roko

So what is the advantage of this new land? Mainly to be outside exising jurisdictions?

Expand full comment
author
Aug 1Author

It can be many things, but "resources" really aren't that valuable.

New land can be good to have new sovereign nations with different systems of government.

Expand full comment
Aug 2Liked by Roko

It does seem weird that half of Earth is empty and unused.

Expand full comment

If you bought them, then you wouldn't be all that self-sufficient, which is important imo.

Expand full comment
author

why is it important? Do you want to be self-sufficient for every possible resource?

Expand full comment

This is a really great idea from a liberty-minded perspective. Seasteaders waste tons of time on futile endeavors when this could probably work if libertarians could actually organize themselves.

Ignoring some of the more globalist and "one world" kinds of assumptions that tend to come with ideas like this, it's a far better avenue for something like private cities and, in the future, gene modified ethnostates for new peoples. Conquering and displacement is just too costly for most the current environment.

Expand full comment

Amazing idea, and I hope it happens one day.

The main hurdle I see is that the US have spent the past 150y taking control of all islands which could remotely support a land invasion from both the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. And in case of failure (Cuba), we nearly all died in a nuclear holocaust.

Surely the US would not see with a kind eye a giant, virtually indestructible, mobile island....

Expand full comment
author

Maybe, but realistically the only nation who could even think about a land invasion of the USA is China, and China can make these ice-islands if they want to with or without US permission.

Expand full comment

I respond to some of your critisms of current seastead designs here:

https://archerships.substack.com/p/are-seasteads-technically-impossible

Expand full comment
Aug 2Liked by Roko

What would a small "demo version" of this look like? Like the Falcon 1, a demonstration to prove that the technology can work. How small could it be? How much would it cost?

Expand full comment
author
Aug 2Author

You could do a demo in a disused swimming pool. Cost probably on a par with an applied science PhD, i.e. $1M or so.

Expand full comment

It's a great idea.

Unfortunately it's a "Will to Power" kind of thing.

As long as the people who could be described as the overseers of Elon Musk (Rotheschildes, etc.) continue to prioritize de-growth and anti-human capital policies, the "ESG Economy", there will be too many legal and hard-power restrictions on this kind of endeavor.

Just considering how Antarctica itself is under direct government ownership shows this would need the blessing of existing bureaucracies. In the current dynamic, at best we will see it done as either an Elysium strategy (in otherwords, only the power elite are welcome) or an expansion of their "maximum human biomass" plans.

Expand full comment
author

Well, it may be worth trying it

Expand full comment

Yeah, I shouldn't be such a damn pessimistic contrarian. It's a great idea, and you've given a sterling defense and explanation of it.

I support it. If we get a Neo-Hitler, this better be #4 on his platform.

Expand full comment
author

Doesn't have to be anything related to the ethnonationalist right. Could be libertarian or something!

Expand full comment

Ha ha, absolutely. Whoever leads us to the Golden Age.

Expand full comment

True, but it cannot be denied that us plebs are really bad at even trying. We have no irl community, no capital willing to be put up, no unified ideal. If we had those things, we could develop an advantage of fanaticism. But, all we have are disperate internet loners.

Expand full comment

Still, if some Heinlein-type or South African Broderbond can pull it off, then it's a wonderful idea.

Expand full comment

"Russia’s conquest of parts of Eastern Ukraine has cost them something like $1.5tr-$2tr for about 100,000 km²"

That's intersting. How did you calculate this?

Expand full comment
author

public data on the land area and estimated direct and indirect costs of the war

Expand full comment

That obviously required some creative accounting, because this number is the size of Russia's pre-war GDP, and Russia actually grew its GDP. That $2tr must have come from elsewhere, perhaps "the markets" paid for it.

Expand full comment
author
Sep 5Author

GDP is a per-year number, not an overall cost. Russian GDP shrunk in 2023 AFAIK and it is spending 6% of GDP on the military.

There is actually quite a lot of debate about the cost to Russia, the $2tr figure is probably wrong though, it's more like there isn't a real figure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Russia

Expand full comment

Any serious conversation on the economic impact will have to aknowledge that Europe paid orders of magnitude more, than Russia did, and they don't even have the territory to show for it.

Expand full comment
author
Sep 8Author

not sure abt ooms more but this is offtopic

Expand full comment

FYI, I've written up a tutorial for building with EPIC mix a low cost, durable, fire-resistant, mold resistant, floating material:

https://archerships.substack.com/p/1075149html

It might be useful as an insulating layer for an icestead.

Expand full comment
author

yeah maybe.

I think just pure air may be better, since it is cheaper.

Layer of concrete, air gap, layer of concrete.

Expand full comment