Adrenaline Hunters Seek to Move Beyond
Humans need to move out of their coddled infancy -- out of their addiction to security and eternal comfort. The only eternal comfort is death, and not many want that. Evolved primates will have to leave their cradle planet, and become good at surviving unimaginable hazards. Adrenaline hunters are the humans who show traces of the instinct to go beyond. There is no safety, no security. There is only competence to face the inevitable hazards coming our way. We have to find that competence.
Beyond the thrill-seekers, the explorers, and the adventurers, human societies must be able to produce the pioneers -- people who move permanently out into the danger zone. People able to adapt and prosper using their own resources.
The tools needed to make the remaining frontiers on Earth (the oceans, polar regions, the high atmosphere) safe for human habitation are very close. The tools needed to make outer space and planetary surfaces safe for human living are not much farther behind. For such hazardous environments, competence is always the central tool for survival.
Beyond the thrill-seekers, the explorers, and the adventurers, human societies must be able to produce the pioneers -- people who move permanently out into the danger zone. People able to adapt and prosper using their own resources.
The tools needed to make the remaining frontiers on Earth (the oceans, polar regions, the high atmosphere) safe for human habitation are very close. The tools needed to make outer space and planetary surfaces safe for human living are not much farther behind. For such hazardous environments, competence is always the central tool for survival.
Labels: adventure toys, competence
posted by al fin at 12:37 pm
7 Comments:
Judging by American history the two biggest reasons men leave the confines of civilization for virgin territory are religion and poverty. The Puritans and the Mormons were both looking for land where they could build a society their way. Judging by both groups I would also say that the religious fervor that sustained the original colonists usually fades or dies completely after 200 years. The former Puritan territories burst forth with the Transcendentalist movement and the Mormons are currently devolving into a sect of Protestantism.
As for Poverty, that doesn't require much explanation.
Yes, but that doesn't get us very far. What we need are tangible plans and models whereby those who are currently motivated -- for whatever reason -- may overcome the challenges of the new extreme colonies.
The oceans, the undersea, the polar regions, the high atmosphere, and the underground. After that, the spaces beyond Earth.
Each challenge will require its own innovations, inventions, and improvisations. Not to mention a certain compulsion to go beyond the ordinary.
Only a small founder group is needed to start the colony. Once the colony is up and running, and is sufficiently prosperous then it can begin to attract the disaffected and the poor of relatively high IQ races. At some point however the colony will have to completely cut off immigration and rely on its own growth.
I think a founder population of about two hundred would be needed, along with sovereignty over a relatively large territory. In fact, any territory would have to be big enough to eventually accommodate 4-5 million people under conventional conditions.
Despite my own preference for religion, such a colony should not have any established church. Massachusetts had a state church into the 1830's and as I mentioned above the leadership of that church went nuts in the Transcendentalist movement. I mention this because the next generation after the Trans wackos let in millions of Irish into their state. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Irish individually, but the recent federal senate election was the first one in 150 years that they turned from the Democratic party en masse. Clearly first came the stat church losing its marbles, and then the importation of millions of foreigners who ended up alienated from the native culture of the state for 150 years.
In the next 50 years I can see seasteading becoming feasible, but it isn't yet. Arctic settlement is possible now, as is settling the harsher deserts. Latin America and Africa are out of the question, at least for me. This leaves a few barren patches in the polar regions and Central Asia. Here is my list of places that *might* be habitable now:
*Central Asia
*Siberia
*The Alaskan Bush
*The Canadian North
*Antarctica
Antarctica is claimed by several countries, and some of the insecure ones like Argentina might intervene to prove how tough they are. Russia won't like us settling in its Near Abroad, and if Russia comes apart China may grab those territories. Alaska is firmly in the grip of the United States, and America is the root of the world's ills at this point. This leaves Canada as the most likely place for our colony. Canada is an unnatural political entity and its elite is importing a new people, in imitation of America, to suppress the western part.
We need Canada to fail for our plan to succeed. Everything from there is just a technical challenge no greater than housebuilding in a subdivision.
In order to estimate how much land we would need at full conventional build-out here a few metro areas and countries by area and population:
*Phoenix MA
4.3m - 16,573 sq. miles
Ireland: 4.5m - 27,133 mi2
Israel: 7.5m - 8,522 mi2
Iceland: 0.3m - 39,770 mi2
Hawaii: 1.2m - 10,931 mi2
Cuba: 11.5m - 42,803 mi
Using the above numbers as a rough guide, we would need 30k square miles of land for a colony on the Arctic Circle to support a colony using the normal methods we use down south. Adjusting for climate we would probably need 2-3x that so around 60-90k square miles. The best would either be an island in the arctic archipelago for somewhat easy access to the sea, or an inland plain that might hold out some chance to be farmed.
I was this idea:
Haiti is very poor.
If a very rich group or individual would be interested in buying land from Haiti to create a new nation, it could be able to buy it.
The contract must establish that the land sold is under the sovranity of the buyers and out of the sovranity of Haiti (better if it is devoid of haitians).
They don't need a very large patch of land. Only enough to accomodate a homesteading colony (100 Km2 would be enough) and access to the sea.
I suspect that for now the ideas of starting colonies on land currently belonging to established countries are non-starters.
You should remember how readily third world dictators tend to nationalise foreign assets and investments whenever they feel the whim to do so.
Ron, the idea of putting a colony in Canada is particularly bad. It is one thing to try to appropriate an unclaimed seamount or a contested international preserve such as a part of Antarctica. Trying to claim part of an established country is not thinking clearly.
If you have the $billion to invest, no problem. But if you expect to find investors to back your ideas, you might try to tighten things up a bit.
My plan for settling the Canadian far north depends on Canada breaking up, which could happen or maybe not.
Although most of Antarctica has been claimed by various governments, Marie Byrd Land is currently unclaimed. The only downside is that MBL could potentially be claimed by the United States, which currently does not have an Antarctic claim.
MBL is the only significant unclaimed piece of land in the world.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home