Comments page

(You may have to reload this page to see new comments or modifications to the source paragraph. Also note that the source section may have been edited since some of these comments were made.)
Original Paragraph:
[ Modified Mon Sep 20 16:51:29 EDT 2004 ]
[ Modified Mon Sep 20 17:00:07 EDT 2004 ]
[ Modified Fri Oct 29 02:10:54 EDT 2004 ]
[ Modified Fri Oct 29 02:15:02 EDT 2004 ]
[ Modified Thu Nov 11 21:15:41 EST 2004 ]
[ Modified Thu Nov 11 21:30:03 EST 2004 ]
[ Modified Mon Nov 15 14:48:12 EST 2004 ]
[ Modified Mon Nov 15 15:00:32 EST 2004 ]

When properly designed, a seastead's environmental impact can be quite low. It will be up to the residents to specify their environmental polices and choose appropriate technologies. We've started writing a low-impact environmental plan for residential seasteads.

Source: http://seastead.org/commented/paper/misc.html#When_properly_designed_a_seasteads_environmental_i

 Add a comment

Comments:

[Mon Nov 17 19:58:32 PST 2003-320] corwyn (NOSPAMcorwyn@midcoast.com.NOSPAM):
In general I think that you will have to work hard to make your seastead have less of an environmental impact than conventional housing on land. Concrete produces 25% or so of all the CO2 being produced. You are proposing to use a lot of it per person in construction. Steel likewise. Transportation fuels will make an hour long commute seem reasonable. You need to give something back to the land that is providing your start, otherwise you are just a bigger better parasite.

I think you will need to simplify and simplify again in order to get any of this to work. Think raft not building. Think flotsam even.
[Tue Nov 18 20:41:44 PST 2003-321] Patri Friedman (NOSPAMpatri@seastead.org.NOSPAM):
You are right that concrete production produces a lot of Co2 (which I hadn't realized, thanks). Its not quite as bad as an analysis of production suggests, however, because concrete re-absorbs much of the C02 created during its production, as discovered during the Biosphere oxygen problems:

http://www.buildinggreen.com/news/concreteco2sink.cfm

Alternative cements do even better:

http://www.utne.com/pub/2002_114/features/3161-1.html

We should remember to mention environmental impact when we discuss materials in the engineering section, I'll make a note of that.
[Tue Nov 18 20:49:25 PST 2003-321] Patri Friedman (NOSPAMpatri@seastead.org.NOSPAM):
This is a first draft and practical simplification is great. The problem with rafts and flotsam, however, is that they get pulverised in storms. We don't want to simplify ourselves to a watery death :).

Also, simplification has different values for different people. Personally, I'm in it for the political freedom, not the sustainability aspect. Hence my viewpoint on design is different.
[Mon Jul 4 23:48:24 PDT 2005-184] C.A. Lockwood:
Corwyn: These are seasteads. If we gan get the icecaps to melt a tad faster, it will only be good for business. ;)

Add a comment:

We'd love to get your feedback. Name and email address are optional. Email will be listed with the comment, but munged to foil spammers. Comments may be deleted by the sysadmin.
Currently, all HTML tags are forbidden for security reasons. This will be improved later.
Name:
Email:

Comments:


Back to original paragraph
View all comments on paper/misc.html for this day, week, month.
Read about the SOCS commenting package body> body> body> body>