Not really the same. The oceans are clearly finite. Space is not.
Wrenching_Spanners referred to one of the advantages space colonies would have over ocean colonies; space is a sterile environment. In space you can build industrial operations without having to worry about pollution because you can just dump waste products outside.
Space junk is already a huge problem. We don’t need more of it put into orbit around the Earth.
The question is whether such a colony is desired because we actually need more space, or it’s because we want more space.
What advantage does an ocean colony have over an arcology or any other social structure built on land? It’s not built on land that is claimed and governed by an existing political body. Which means that a community could create their own laws, their own constitution, and leave the legacy problems behind. There’d still be some level of international law that they’d have to abide, but for questions of taxes, civil rights or abortion law, they’d be able to make their own determinations. I think that is the driving fantasy behind both the idea of ocean and space colonization.
I’m sure that in either case, engineering and technical challenges can be overcome, but is that at a price tag that these freedom lovers are willing to pay?
How would those of us who remain on land get economic mobility or lower taxes out of this deal? It sounds like you’re envisioning a situation where so many people get on the boats that the land population declines substantially. We have lots of experience in what it looks like when population declines because people move elsewhere for better opportunities (let’s just assume that boatland is a better opportunity) and it doesn’t look like prosperity and wealth and economic mobility, it looks like a perpetual depression.
I watched a documentary that was narrated by Kevin Costner on this very topic. It’s called Waterworld if you want to check it out.
Coincidentally, this is now showing up in news stories.
The problem with expanding human infrastructure into the deserted parts of the Earth’s land surface is that these areas often have a rare and delicate ecosystem.
I had an idea to build large, floating solar power collectors in the most lifeless part of the Pacific Ocean, which is supposed to be the most lifeless part of the Earth; using solar power, seawater could be distilled and rainwater collected (if any), and this fresh water could be stored for emergency use and export. Note that fresh water floats on seawater, so you could wrap it in a lightweight container and use it as a flotation aid.
If these floating solar power collectors were extensive enough they might attract a small (or moderately large) population, but population growth is likely to be less of a problem in the long-term future. The floating containers would presumably be manufactured from some carbon compound, and it may be possible to extract this carbon directly from the air (yes, yes, I know we don’t have the technology for this at the moment, but in a century or two we probably will have this capacity).
Power generation is likely to be a major consideration for the long-term future on our planet; there are three main options - fission, fusion and solar power. Fusion is the one I’d prefer, but if it doesn’t work out I’d expect a huge expansion in solar power generation - and this (highly speculative) scheme is one option I would like to be explored further.
This is all assuming that we change after death. I have heard the
While that is true. It would be FAR worse in space. My goal was to suggest that it would be much more useful in the short term and actually somewhat practical when compared to a space colony. Honestly, I don’t think that we are going to really colonize space until asteroid mining becomes cheaper than earth mining.
I think it might be possible with a few advances in desalinization technology. As for brine, well, we might find a genuine use for it in the future.
It is true that there are vast swathes of land that are not populated by humans. But, most of these lands are environments that have yet to be exploited. Forests, deserts, mountains, etc. Do you really want to industrialize even more of the world? At least in the case of the oceans, it would be more probable that they could build our colonies in the open ocean where few ecosystems exist.
“Space,” is finite as well. Not within the next few trillion years will we even see all of it. But, it is still for all purposes, limited to the local cluster. Sure, it would take far longer to colonize all of that than populating the oceans, but the argument of “it’s finite bro, what’s the point” doesn’t really make sense. Not even taking into account the idea that the middle of the ocean, or the ocean floor might be colonized, with just the surface, the oceans could support tens of billions of people. That alone is worthy of pursuit. The “it’s finite” argument does not work, because everything that has ever existed is “finite,” that has not stopped us from doing anything.
What makes you think that oceans aren’t complex and vital ecosystems? Do you really want to industrialize the oceans?
I think there’s a big issue of economic incentives, too. Both Mars and the oceans would be difficult and expensive to colonize. I’m honestly not sure which one is the greater engineering challenge.
But let’s say you pull it off. What’s the benefit?
Well, with Mars you have a whole planet to potentially exploit and profit from, and maybe eventually some kind of species-protecting spreading of humanity. And the technology developed to get there and live there has uses on other planets, where other people are going to want to go to exploit resources. And you have a strong economic and political moat against others because it’s so damn difficult to get there in the first place.
With the oceans you have… what, exactly, that you didn’t already have? The resources of the ocean can already be pretty well exploited with ships and land-based enterprises. There’s no insulation from economic or political interference from the rest of humanity because they’re all right next door. The technology developed will let you potentially colonize other watery environments on this planet, but they all have the same economic and political downsides. Oceans: a nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there.
Do you really believe that any ocean space you want to colonise won’t have an ecosystem? You should be making an argument that future ocean based cities will have a smaller environmental footprint than future land based cities. The problem is that you’ll be wrong. Current ocean-based “settlements” such as drilling platforms and cruise ships require a huge amount of support in terms of resources. Any future based ocean colony will require a similar amount of land based support. And however much they try to reduce that land based support by harvesting resources from the nearby ocean environment, they’ll be doing harm to that ecosystem.
Here’s some questions for you. Is your ocean colony going to be floating, or based on the sea floor? If it’s floating, how much material is going to be required to keep it floating and in place? A cruise ship can move around. Oil platforms are relatively small, and even so are evacuated in extreme weather. Neither are remotely self-sufficient. If your colony is on the sea floor, then how are they going to generate food, energy, or pretty much anything needed for a self-sufficient habitat?
Ocean colonies are a fun idea for speculative science fiction, just like space colonies are. The reasons why neither exist are that they’re expensive, inefficient, and are a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.
The closest that we are to colonising the oceans is land reclamation, i.e., building cities on land that was formerly sea floor and has been artificially reclaimed. The Netherlands is a prime example of a country that has been doing this for centuries and whose territory has, in large parts, been gained by such means; see Flevoland and its capital city Lelystad for human settlements on land which was, until well into the 20th century, the floor of a bay of the North Sea. Other countries or jurisdictions whose territory is in large parts reclaimed are Monaco and Hong Kong. But of course, such projects are very much adjacent to a natural coastline and don’t take place on the high seas.
Yikes. I was afraid of this. I meant no slight toward Chronos at all! He raised a good and interesting point. I was just riffing on it and expressing my cynicism about the world doing what it needs to do. I was suggesting that the average Earthling, once learning of Chronos’ thoughts, would see it as a way to legitimize continuing to do very little about AGW.
Sorry about any confusion! 
Such as? I am curious. I have been following the technology for nearly a decade, and I’ve not seen anything out there saying they’re on the verge of advances, other than slightly reducing the amount of brine produced for each amount of fresh water.
The brine market is already pretty saturated (snerk), the product is dirt cheap, as all you need is salt and water. What uses do you perceive as “genuine” that aren’t already being readily exploited by many, many industries? It’s already used in huge amounts in cooling, and quenching (as in steel) industries, plus in food processing.
Never mind.
You can do anything when scientists invent magic.
