/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3548982
yeah, good luck with that.

>and they wonder why the world isn't governed by scientists and engineers

>>3549007
That's why we do it on a smaller scale. Obviously a large nation can't.

bump

>military
No scientist is gonna do that.

>taking over an existing nation
>not seasteading
>not using Open Farm Tech, among other open hardware initiatives, to build micro economies
>expecting an aggressive culture that forces others to serve it rather than tempting people in with greater benefits to work out

Really?

>overthrow a small African nation and become the new warlords
Oh wow, you have fun with that OP.

>create a caste system
>be surprised when you start stagnating

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_afr.html
pick one.
brainstorm shitstorm

pandora song related - kill everybody by skrillex

>>3549171

In light of gradually worsening hurricanes and tropical storms, homesteading on the surface of the ocean sounds like a terrible idea.

Any safe oceanic communities must be deeper than 200 feet to completely escape storm action on the surface.

Here's a render I did recently of what a small community comprised of mass produced, low cost habitats would look like. Each individual pod houses 2 adults comfortably, so each cluster can house 8. The habitats are designed to fit boat trailers and be deployed via normal boat ramps, which eliminates 90% of the cost of getting a habitat to where it will be used.

This is something that could realistically be achieved if a group of like minded people with average jobs set aside money for a few years.

OP here, let's make this a "how /sci/ would build a nation" general thread.

>>3549204
off sao tome then?

let's.

But we would need economists and Economics is not a science.

perfect labor ready force. small military.

checking topography.

>>3549009
>small african nation

The start up capital required to industrialize the region would be atrocious. You also treat the locals as secondary citizens yet want to use them as the nations primary bulk military? You want to have a large array of projects to further technological advancement yet have a small nation limiting natural resources you are able to market this makes having a large amount of research facilities nonviable.

While the intention is good, I can only imagine the technocratic nation of /sci/ being like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6RbEOlqRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8uLT_EIJjs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycn7S30UoMg&feature=related

from sao tome to

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/wa.html

>>3549221
Not to mention that you'll have to trade with other nations to uphold any level of advanced technology. And thus will instantly be tied to the world economic system, which means you'll be capitalisms' bitch like every other nation.

Become Ancient Aliens to Dumb Niggers

>> Egypt.jpg

#Winning>

>3548982

>>3549231
"diamonds, copper, uranium, gold, silver, lead, tin, lithium, cadmium, tungsten, zinc, salt, hydropower, fish
note: suspected deposits of oil, coal, and iron ore"

>>3549204
those pods seem to be cramped for one individual as a very small studio apartment.

>>3549226
Oh god he's right.

>>3549243

It's hard to get a sense of scale, but yeah, it's about as much space as in a typical dorm. That's not for everyone, but I prefer compact living spaces.

>>3549278
yeah but if your gonna actually have that be your home you want something more accommodating 2 or 3 of those attached side by side making a sort of square would be much more comfortable living conditions for most people.

>>3549294
Besides, how can we make a civilization out of this?

Water based rocket launches? Oh fuck.

Let's begin with biological warfare.

First we need to pool our money for a plane to get us their, and enough supplies to get us started.

Let's start with a small area of tribal land to begin with that's relatively far off from any other group of people.

>>3549278
>>3549294
Guys, you know that living under the ocean isn't worth it, right?

>>3549303
>Let's begin with biological warfare.
This thread just gets better and better.

>>3549305
And we somehow get back to the undersea research base.

>>3549305
It isn't whether or not that its worth it to live under the sea, it's whether or not the option is available for long periods of time or on a larger scale.

>>3549322
Feasibility is a sliding scale. We call all the ones that have a negative cost/benefit "not worth it".

You need a very, very strong reason to do things under the ocean to offset how fucking HARD and RISKY and EXPENSIVE (wasteful) it is, and I just don't see those reasons.

>>3549294

If you have the money, you can buy your own cluster of 4 habitats just for yourself. That would offer ample space, but cost around $150,000.

>Besides, how can we make a civilization out of this?

There are already oceanic civilizations. On the ocean episode of BBC's "Human Planet" they show a tribe that has been living out to sea on wooden platforms for hundreds of generations. They go to land only to fix their boats. And many make their living by freediving to hunt fish, their bodies having adapted to be negatively buoyant, and capable of holding their breath for longer periods.

They also show Polynesian (I think?) compressor divers who make their living by descending to 100 feet, breathing air pumped down to them from a compressor on the boat overhead. Dozens of men dive like this and coordinate to scare huge schools of fish into a waiting net.

There are smarter ways to make a living from the ocean provided you have the technology, but even with low tech methods you can sustain a large population far from land, just on what the sea provides.

Guys, fuck the sea. It'll be much easier to kill a few tribes and take their land instead.

It'll be like taking out fish in a barrel.

>>3549307
Don't worry, once we get to space, we'll do away with those inefficient killers and just bombard population centres.

Let's take Somalia!

>>3549331

>You need a very, very strong reason to do things under the ocean to offset how fucking HARD and RISKY and EXPENSIVE (wasteful) it is, and I just don't see those reasons.

There are some unjustified assumptions here. First, that human beings only ever settle someplace because it 's necessary. Why did we settle Hawaii? Sometimes, we settle new places out of a strong desire to live someplace beautiful and exotic.

Second, you assume it's hard, risky and expensive. This is true of the 1960s attempts at undersea living, but we learned a great deal from them. The technology and methods are now sufficiently mature that scuba diving is an affordable and widely enjoyed sport, people commonly build their own submarines, and occasionally their own DIY underwater habitats. It is no longer possible to argue that it's especially hard or expensive, for that reason. Nor is it particularly risky, any moreso than living anywhere else, provided you have well designed life support equipment with redundant systems.

Pic related, middleclass biologist from australia living in a homemade underwater habitat.

>>3549331
the only real reason it gets toyed with as an idea on a larger scale is just that land is a resource.

>>3549343
>>3549337
You retards are so fucking doomed if you think you can be yet another group to waltz in with AK-47s and just be recognized as the new local government without getting slaughtered.

>>3549353
Not THAT fucking scarce. That's the point. Take the startup capital that would be invested in just how fucking hard it is to have a perpetual underwater habitat, and buy land instead. No way that wouldn't be better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwFOaBas90I

Here's the episode of Human Planet that covers the few cultures that live and work entirely at sea. It is entirely possible, and could be done much more comfortably with technology that is now very mature and reasonably priced.

Pic: The interior of the prototype for the trailer deployed habitat. Includes small kitchenette, bed, tv/entertainment console and a bathroom. Conservatively it will cost around $35,000 in the initial small production runs although that could be brought down over time.

>>3549354
>implying /sci/'s military technology isn't better than third world guns

>>3549356
Well then how about we buy thorium reserves in the US? Make MSRs and use profits to go from there. A corporation can probably be just as good as a nation with enough power.

>>3549356
were talking about several 100 years down the line if space travel hasn't adapted very far

>>3549373
this has just become a james bond book.

>>3549367
>/sci/'s military technology
Holy fuck you're delusional.

>>3549380
Sure, maybe. The world 100 years from now is pretty much inscrutable.


But not this decade.

>>3549367

/sci/ has no military technology. It's a loose collection of individuals mainly from the US and britain who may own firearms but nothing that isn't also available to third world militias.

If you want a /sci/ nation within the financial means of the average person here it will probably wind up being a collection of yurts and tents on remote land somewhere we can get away with squatting.

However most would want it to be something technologically involved, futuristic and novel. For what ordinary people can afford, the budget ambient pressure habitat community fits the bill. It's on free land, surrounded by abundant food and energy, and it's something legitimately unusual and forward thinking in a way that a land encampment would not be.

>>3549401
Exactly why we should use our skills and knowledge to create a corporate front to fund our efforts.

>>3549401

Fuck that shit. I want world domination.

>>3549419
no, you just want to be less of a loser and a kissless virgin

>>3548982
>go to Africa, use superior knowledge, technology to overtake small African nation

We'll be on the news as hostages to some Congolese rebel faction in no time.

sometimes it takes a post like OP's to remind myself I'm mostly talking to high schoolers and twenty something suburban kids who know nothing about the world.

>>3549437
That's the plan.

>>3549447
>forgot he's on 4chan

>>3549447

Just wait until we become one of the leading countries in the world. You're gonna be disappointed you blew us off.

>>3549447

Don't lump me in there. I tried to offer a feasible alternative. If /sci/ really wanted a futuristic community of their own, commercially produced low cost underwater habitats sunk 200 miles offshore near the equator is about the best way to do it. Each costs about the same as a new car, you get the gee whiz futurism factor but the land is free, you're surrounded by free food and energy and it's a uniquely beautiful place to live.

>>3549447
thread like these pop out every now and then, on /b/ and /sci/ mostly.

>>3549421
Historically this is how the big 3 20th century dictators got started.

>>3549204
>>3549346
>>3549332

I wouldn't mind living in such small space, but I don't know what work I would do for work. To some degree I suppose some of us could do design work over the internet, but if we're living in the deep ocean, I'm not sure about fishing. As long as we can do it without contributing too greatly to the overfishing problem, I'm all for it. We'll probably need to farm algal seaweed or something, though, and that'll do better closer to the surface. This wouldn't mean living structures have to be up there with them, but they either need to be manned most of the time or sturdy enough that they don't have to be. I don't know how deep these living spaces are meant to be, but if they're deep enough, I suppose we could use nutrients from the surface to farm animals that don't live near the surface. Given the way the ocean is going, I think we'll want to be catching and processing jellyfish.

>>3549488

>I don't know how deep these living spaces are meant to be

Only 250 feet. That's safely below the 200 foot threshold where storm action on the surface won't affect you, but well within the photic zone so you get plenty of sunlight. We could absolutely farm seaweed at that depth, although in terms of nutrition and potential export profits we'd be better off communally operating an open water fish farm like the one in the picture. These already exist, and would benefit greatly from having divers on hand all the time for maintinence and harvest.

Actually come to think of it that depth would require that we mix helium into our breathing gas. That could get costly. It could be stationed instead at 90-100 feet (so we can pump unaltered air down without worrying about oxygen toxicity) and still be somewhat insulated from surface storms, Aquarius is in just 60 feet of water and has weathered several hurricanes without incident.

100 feet it is, then. Unless anyone has a burning desire to breathe helium and sound like donald duck all the time.

>>3549509
>Unless anyone has a burning desire to breathe helium and sound like donald duck all the time.
You say that like its a bad thing

Money is power. If you want to accmplish anything like what is described in the op we would need a lot money. We would be far better off starting a mega corporation that is focusedon the research and the development technologies that can be merketed to the general public, and world governments. Once we have duck tons of money we start to manipulate politics in our favor, establish our own nation of sorts somewhere, begin controlling resources, etc.

>>3549558

The problem is, getting people together that have the blood to do it.

>>3549562
Easily exploitable.

QUESTION.

Why Africa?
High amount of minerals...?

Alright, let's combine the best of all plans:

>create a corporate front
>buy thorium reserves
>sell energy
>build a secret ocean habitat to fuel research efforts
>eventually expand ocean habitat to a legitimate place to live with funds

>>3549566
Yeah, have fun getting taken hostage and/or slaughtered.

>>3549583

You forgot something

>take over a country and install our own government

>>3549586
>hire a PMC

>>3549509
I still don't feel that comfy, but 30m is a lot better than 75m underwater IMO. Although I would have to learn to swim either way, but meh.

But what was the point of living underwater again? Being "out of sight"? Less expensive?
And as we develop, where do we grow to? We develop tecnology to build every fucking thing underwater or we go back up at some point?

>>3549589
and then

>establish moonbase

>>3549586

We'll be in our underwater sea front while our puppets will be captured.

>>3549590
To take over a small country? Good fucking luck.

Also,
>implying you have that kind of money

>>3549594

And then

>establish interstellar transport and living stations.

>>3549509

In a previous statement you said we required to be at 200 feet (60 metres) depth to be safe from storms et cetera. How would that fare with only 100 feet?

And another thing; while most lakes are state owned or have other unpleasant attributions I still think we also should consider these as a possible candidate due to freshwater supply.

I haven't done any detailed dedicated research so far yet, but I think Lake Victoria might be a good oppertunity to start with.

Count me in.

>>3548982

healthy 18 year old reporting in. Will provide free labor in return for food, shelter, and water for whoever gets this going.

>>3549628
There are similar efforts which don't involve trying to do this underwater or in territory run by warlords.

Back to the Motherland we go

This thread remind me of rapture
Would you kindly /sci/?

>>3549619
>>3549628
>>3549638

Excellent. We'll need an area to setup our corporation to get funds first.

>>3549665

Someone mentioned this place a long time ago in a thread.

bump

>>3549677

We need capital, it's best to start somewhere in America.

>>3549730

I agree that would make food production easier and more efficient.

>>3549677

Hmmm.. Geothermal energy to spare huh?

>>3549834
Natural disasters to spare as well.

bump

Would thinking the idea makes sense be enough to be apart of it, or will there be people judged worthy and unworthy? What would the "morals" of such a society be?

>>3549171
How the fuck have I not heard about seasteading? This shit is so awesome.

>militarize space
I will always reject bringing the most vile example of complacency in humanity into space.

May OP make some sort of forum? So we can talk, scheme and make evil laughter- like it is common for good scientists.

>>3548982
an island would make more sense - easily defendable etc.

also you got a few billion quid spare?

thorium reactors ftw

We would need to gather a shitload of engineers.

>>3554640
Fuck. There goes procreation unless you clone shit.

>>3554597

You can try the discussion area in our old wiki

http://technocraticrepublic.wikispaces.com/message/list/home

>>3549171
This.

Try making it a positive-sum game instead.

I've been a lot of threads like these. If you're serious about succeeding then it comes down to 2 factors.

Money
and
Active Participation

if you can overcome those obstacles then I wouldn't say much could stop you. But seeing as it's no secret this board is populated with lazy broke teens that will always be the brick wall between you and success.