Work out the technical details with numerical analysis to back up your claims and come back to us with your findings.

They're really expensive, very hard to live in, and there is nearly no benefit to them at all.

There is a lot of land, it's far more flexible, extremely cheap to use, and within reach.

Are you really wondering about this?

>>4337858
Alright, give me a minute or two.

>>4337776
> Why don't we start building undersea colonies?

Because it's hugely expensive, dangerous, and there's no lack of space on land to build, work and live.

Seabros are mentally ill... just like Liberals are.

>>4337776
Cheaper than the moon?
Sure; it's closer, we don't have to launch to it, etc.
But that's a false dichotomy: either one is for completely different purposes.

I mean, if we had a huge undersea colony right now, how would that impact our interest in a colony in low gravity, that could give us a start exploring space?

It's not just about a few minerals.

Exploitation could help us fund WHAT?

Why don't we start building desert colonies?

It would be expensive but much cheaper and safer than building a colony on the ocean floor. The desert is rich with resources, the exploitation of which could help fund such an ambitious project.

Why don't we start building South Dakota colonies?

It would be expensive but much cheaper and safer than building a colony in the desert. South Dakota is rich with resources, the exploitation of which could help fund such an ambitious project.

>>4337964
I would move to a desert colony. It would be full of disappointed women.

>I could have sworn the brochure said 'dessert colony'.

I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED

>>4337867

>They're really expensive, very hard to live in, and there is nearly no benefit to them at all.

They aren't hard to live in, and there are benefits. There are activities you can do from a habitable undersea platform that you cannot do as economically from shore, or a boat. It's why we continue to fund the Aquarius undersea research station, pic related.

>There is a lot of land, it's far more flexible, extremely cheap to use, and within reach.

Implicit in this statement is the assumption that the only reason people might wish to live underwater is because there is a land shortage.

As for OP's question, there is an undersea colony being built: www.underseacolony.com

There's not likely an economic rationale for more than a few, as you need to surround them with fish farms, OTEC, current turbines and so on in order to get enough benefit from their presence to justify the construction expense, but there will be at least one, optimistically a few dozen, and realistically between three and ten.

>It would be expensive but much cheaper and safer than building a colony on the Moon.
This is true.

> The ocean floor is rich with resources, the exploitation of which could help fund such an ambitious project.
Not enough to make the project worth it. However,
>yfw we are already mining the ocean floor for fossil fuels and rare earth mineral deposits

>>4337964

>Why don't we start building desert colonies?

We do, there are multiple cities in the desert.

>It would be expensive but much cheaper and safer than building a colony on the ocean floor. The desert is rich with resources, the exploitation of which could help fund such an ambitious project.

The desert isn't rich with resources, which is why most of the time those cities require tremendous outside support. There's no food there, desert cities exist in the US because of a robust, mature supply infrastructure to bring in food via train/truck and water via pipelines. Las Vegas is an example of a desert city sustained by tourism, a model that could also sustain an underwater colony.

>>4337997

>Not enough to make the project worth it.

Supposing people came together and built a colony "just because". Can you not imagine that the presence of such a facility would be a boon to underwater industry simply by putting employees at the worksite such that they can conduct inspections and maintinence daily rather than monthly or bi-monthly, for the same pay?

That's going to be part of how Atlantica provides jobs to colonists. The nearby tidal turbine we'll be getting power from will need regular inspections and maintinence, and the company that owns it would prefer to hire someone who can make more frequent visits for the same pay.

Pic related, the turbine.

>>4337964
>>4337976

These posts miss the point. People who are interested in living underwater aren't considering it for lack of any other place to live. They already have ample choices. They specifically want to live underwater.

Some people do live in the desert by choice. Many live in South Dakota by choice. As you've observed both are less ideal than living in certain other regions. But people want to live where they want to live, and regardless of difficulty, if they have the money and willpower, they will make it happen. Likewise with the ocean.

>>4337990

>Undersea colonies as labor platforms

Okay, maybe I spoke too soon. This seems promising. But it doesn't apply to mining because that's done much deeper than you could possibly build a colony with current materials. It would only benefit stuff that you can do in relatively shallow water, a few hundred feet or less.

>>4338049

That's what Conshelf 3 was. Unlike 2, it wasn't designed to be comfortable or homey, it was housing and a workshop for laborers. It proved that humans living undersea could perform tasks many times faster than attempting to complete the same work with surface divers.

Most react to this by suggesting that robots make human workers undersea obsolete. Except today, that's not true. ROVs are only used for inspection and simple tasks. Human divers, both saturated and in newt suits, are still employed to perform oil rig maintinence. We simply don't have robots that can do what they do.

"So why did the Conshelf program end?" It was funded by the French oil industry. Jacques Cousteau became a staunch environmentalist and turned against any industrialization of the sea following the Conshelf 3 program, and as a result much of his funding vanished.

>>4338000
>those cities require tremendous outside support
Everyone requires tremendous outside support. That's why you're typing on a computer instead of impressing a wax tablet.

>>4338022
>They specifically want to live underwater.
Great!
>>4337990
>fish farms, OTEC, current turbines
Under water colonies provide NO BENEFIT to any of these things!

Under water colonies, because it's fun! <- Sure, why not.
Under water colonies, because it's economically sound. <- Full Retard.

>>4338091
>"So why did the Conshelf program end?" It was funded by the French oil industry. Jacques Cousteau became a staunch environmentalist and turned against any industrialization of the sea following the Conshelf 3 program, and as a result much of his funding vanished.
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't the Oil Industry continue without Cousteau?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_habitat#Conshelf_I.2C_II_and_III
>It was also found in later years that industrial tasks underwater could be more efficiently performed by undersea robot devices and men operating from the surface or from smaller lowered structures, made possible by a more advanced understanding of diving physiology.

Oh, I see, they didn't stop the program because Cousteau pulled out, but because it wasn't economically viable.

>>4337990
>>4338000
>>4338012
>>4338022
DEAR EVERYONE.
BELIEVE THIS MAN.
HE IS A GOD.

That will me all. Looking forward to the exploration of space for all of hamkind. Have you researched the effects of low gravity on rodents?

>>4338288

>Everyone requires tremendous outside support. That's why you're typing on a computer instead of impressing a wax tablet.

It isn't binary. Yes, all cities require outside support. But to different degrees, based on what resources can be had locally. Can we agree that it is easier to get by in a temperate, forested region (especially in terms of the availability of food) than in a desert?

>Under water colonies provide NO BENEFIT to any of these things!

But they do, specifically by providing a small population of employees living onsite that are able to perform inspections and maintinence with greater frequency for the same pay. Provided the company in question doesn't have to pay for the colony structure it's a good deal for them.

That's exactly the present situation, too. I'm a member of an organization constructing a permanent civilian colony, simply because everyone involved desperately wants to see that dream realized. However it's feasible in terms of covering recurring expenses for the exact reason just mentioned; There's an undersea turbine nearby as well as fish farming to provide employment and to bring in revenue to cover operating costs.

>>4338329

>That makes no sense. Why wouldn't the Oil Industry continue without Cousteau?

They did. It's called saturation diving. Micro habitats called diving chambers lowered by cable permit sat rats to do deep water maintinence of undersea equipment. Just not for extended periods. The argument is that the Conshelf III approach could benefit activities just now being attempted on the conshelf, like undersea fish farming (pic related)

>Oh, I see, they didn't stop the program because Cousteau pulled out, but because it wasn't economically viable.

That's not what your link says. They pursued an alternate model which still involved habitats, just smaller ones lowered by cable, and which lacks the primary benefit of Conshelf III; indefinite dive time.

The notion that things must be done either for fun and at a total loss or in the dullest manner possible for maximum financial gain is a false dichotomy. There's a third way.

Is Disneyland frivolous? Yes. Is it uneconomical? Absolutely not. It's able to continue operating because of the money it brings in. People are frivolous. They have frivolous wants, and they will pay to have those wants satisfied.

Was there some resource in Las Vegas that we needed? Was there a shortage of land elsewhere? Neither of course. It was ambitious, larger than life, a dream made real. But if you build it, they will come, and eventually it had enough of a local economy that now lots of people live there full time. It's not just a tourist attraction, it's a true city. This is a rare approach and difficult to pull off, but it happens.

Hawaii is another good example of this. Yes we had a military base there, but we also have bases in Afghanistan, none developed into US cities. Rather, it gained exposure as a beautiful, idyllic tropical paradise due to returning servicemen who had been there and it created a demand for resorts. Soon the resorts were numerous enough that people moved to Hawaii and lived there fulltime while working at them. Wealthy patrons who visited these resorts had the money and means to develop parts of Hawaii into places they could live full time and did so. Where money goes, business follows, and soon the middleclass lived there as well working in businesses that met the needs of the wealthy. So on and so forth, eventually Hawaii became more than a novelty, more than a frivolous vacation destination. Now it's a state, full of cities, people live there full time.

my fellow n00ps,

you are mixing up colonies and labor platforms.

civil life is more than a dream of some hermit crabs and unless you cant imagine an underwater-kindergarten, you cant imagine underwater-colonies.

compare the filtered, ventilated, re-breathed smell of month to the pheromonic smell of an unknown woman youve just met at a party.
or the artificial light, given to you by less than 1m² lamp surface to an infinite clear night sky.
sure, some people love to be imprisoned but the majority does clearly not.

humans are adapted to their environment, so it might be wiser to adept them to new environments than to build artificial ones.
these differences of life quality make me skeptic about space/moon-colonies as well.

>>4338454

Hey !
Didn't thought that were possible, but I missed your threads.