What do you think?
Rate this book
Seasteading: How Floating Nations Will Restore the Environment, Enrich the Poor, Cure the Sick, and Liberate Humanity from Politicians
In these “thought-provoking visions of the future” (The Wall Street Journal), Joe Quirk and Patri Friedman of the Seasteading Institute explain how ocean cities can solve many of our environmental, technological, and civic problems, and introduce the visionaries and pioneers who are now making seasteading a reality.Our planet has been suffering from serious environmental problems and their social and political consequences. But imagine a vast new source of sustainable and renewable energy that would also bring more equitable economies. A previously untapped source of farming that could produce significant new sources of nutrition. Future societies where people could choose the communities they want to live in, free from the restrictions of conventional citizenship. This extraordinary vision of our near future as imagined in Seasteading attracted the powerful support of Silicon Valley’s Peter Thiel—and it may be drawing close to reality. Facing growing environmental threats, French Polynesia has already signed on to build some of the world’s first seasteads. Joe Quirk and Patri Friedman show us how cities built on floating platforms in the ocean will work, and they profile some of the visionaries who are implementing basic concepts of seasteading today. An entrepreneur’s dream, these floating cities will become laboratories for innovation and creativity. Seasteading “offers hope for a future when life on land has grown grim” (Kirkus Reviews), proving the adage that yesterday’s science fiction is tomorrow’s science fact.
384 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 21, 2017
57 people are currently reading
577 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
December 29, 2017
Seasteading is an interesting idea. Alas, Quirk's approach is not quirky enough to do justice to the unusual advantages of seasteading.
The book's style is too much like a newspaper. Rather than focus on the main advantages of seasteading, it focuses on the concerns of the average person, and on how seasteading might affect them. It quotes interesting people extensively, while being vague about whether the authors are just reporting that those people have ideas, or whether the authors have checked that the ideas are correct. Many of the ideas seem rather fishy.
I suspect that seasteading's biggest need now is businessmen and/or VCs who can start cruise-ship-sized projects. Yet the book seems aimed more at creating broad, shallow support among ordinary readers than it is at inspiring competent entrepreneurs.
"Humanity is poised to plunge in 2050."
Billions of people will face famine in 2050! We're destroying cropland at a sickening pace!
But that's not a problem, because more than half the earth's surface is water that can be farmed!
These are examples of the mix of doom-saying and plans for salvation that pervades the first half of the book. For most of these alleged crises, they fail to convince me the danger is sufficiently high to be a strong reason for seasteading.
The parts about about needing to farm the seas are moderately plausible, but not convincing enough to tempt me to invest in such ventures. And I'm a bit unclear on the connection between farming the seas and having lots of non-farmers live there.
The authors want us to imagine that seaweed is also going to solve our obesity problem. That reflects a pretty confused understanding of what causes obesity. The availability of healthy foods isn't going to stop us from overeating food that is more addictive. The book is also somewhat misleading about seaweed nutrition: "Spirulina is more than 60 percent protein, more than triple the amount in beef, with more than triple the amount of vitamin B12 found in animal liver". But there's some controversy over the bioavailability of that B12, and the protein comparison would look rather different if they compared dry spirulina with dried beef or fresh spirulina with fresh beef. The benefits of seaweed are a small part of the book, but I'm picking on them because I know enough about the topic to criticize misleading claims, and because the book's problems with this topic seem fairly representative of the book's quality.
Energy and the environment
Scattered throughout the book are occasional hints that something related to seasteading will replace oil as fuel. "If biofuel technology had no future, fossil fuel giants would not be investing so heavily." How heavily? They don't say. They left me skeptical that biofuel will be competitive with oil - aren't falling solar energy costs going to drive down oil prices?
The authors claim that pessimists say peak oil has happened, and "the most optimistic analysts say [peak oil in] 2050". Huh? I predict peak oil around 2020 because we'll switch to better energy sources soon. I expect peak oil to be about as important an issue in 2050 as the Y2k problem is today.
The book's subtitle mentions "restore the environment" first among the benefits of seasteads. It suggests ways that seasteads could solve the problems of rising CO2 levels. The book convinced me that those solutions are worth trying. But we're not suffering from a shortage of plans to mitigate global warming. There are promising charities such as Cool Earth that haven't attracted as much money as people spent to see An Inconvenient Truth. That suggests the main obstacle is translating symbolic opposition to climate change into useful results.
I expected someone such as Patri Friedman, who comes from a family of good economists, would do a competent job of focusing on incentives. Yet the book talks about climate change while paying virtually no attention to the incentive problems. Was Patri captured by pirates before that section of the book was written?
The book often cites cruise ships as evidence for the feasibility of most aspects of seasteading. Yet the book is fairly silent about the uninspiring environmental impact of cruise ships.
There are good climate-related arguments for seasteading. Seasteaders won't face as much risk from climate change as landlubbers. Few seas have dangerous heat waves. Seasteads will barely notice rising sea levels. Maybe increased hurricanes will force seasteaders to move to slightly less convenient places. The main threat would be acidification, which might force seasteaders to use expensive farms that have their own pH-controlled water. But the book's focus on apocalypse 2050 leaves these more modest arguments shrouded in fog.
Let a thousand nations bloom?
The second half of the book is more impressive, pointing out the value of experimenting with new political systems.
The book's version of this argument relies too much on ancient Greece and the U.S. western frontier as examples. It's quite possible that the decentralized political structure there contributed to the dominance of western civilization. But it's hard to verify that hypothesis: the good results could have been due to good European culture or genes or something.
The argument for more experiments is more convincing when supplemented with examples from industry. Lessig's book The Future of Ideas has a good perspective on this, with good evidence that (pre-breakup) AT&T would never have chosen to adopt the internet, but rules limiting its choice over phone line uses enabled more innovative entities to do so.
The case for more experiments with political systems depends somewhat on the claim that nobody knows what types of government work well. The authors provide good examples of political disputes where we should doubt our wisdom: some countries do well with low taxes, some do well with high taxes. Examples of good government span much of the left to right political spectrum (Scandinavia, Mauritius, Singapore).
But some of this confusion over good government comes from people focusing too much attention on issues that help us signal our ideological affiliation (tax rates, transgender bathrooms, etc). Those issues are selected for being somewhat immune to easy empirical tests that disprove one side.
When I try to look for patterns among the more successful new nations/city states, I see some common features. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Mauritius all adopted a British court system (and Dubai partly did that) around the time they started outperforming their neighbors. Other nations that I'd be ok with living in tend to have somewhat similar court systems.
Low corruption seems like another pretty good indicator of how good a country is (see Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index). Maybe that's a large part of what makes a political system work well. It's unclear what causes some nations to have less corrupt governments than others. So I can't tell whether more experiments will cause us to stumble on good ways to produce low-corruption nations, or whether the next Singapores and Dubais will mostly require seeding new nations with residents who have high moral standards.
Another approach I'd try if I were designing a seastead city-state would be to figure out what Silicon Valley did right. Annalee Saxenian's Regional Advantage suggests that there are a few key differences in laws (e.g. non-compete agreements are mostly unenforceable), but that most of what made Silicon Valley excel was culture: greater willingness to share information with potential competitors, more willingness to hire people who previously worked for a failed startup, etc.
So it's a bit less clear than the book wants us to believe that we need lots of experimentation with new legal systems.
There's also a chapter on health that talks too much about projects that are only marginally related to seasteading. Medical tourism is a good idea, both as a means to help finance seasteads, and as a means to improve medical care (mainly via incentives for existing hospitals to be more competitive). But I doubt it will become a large industry (at least in the developed world), due to the inconvenience of travel (especially when sick), and due to most people in developed nations having care paid by insurance and/or government.
Customers?
Where are the people who will pay to live on the first big seasteads?
The book often mentions cruise ships as evidence that seasteading is feasible. Yet cruise ships are also evidence that there isn't strong demand for the benefits of full-fledged seasteads - if there were such demand, why aren't cruise ships trying to satisfy it?
I want lots more choices of political systems to exist, so that I'll have more options, but I'm not in any hurry to try them out. I'm sufficiently risk-averse about political systems that I want to wait until new ones are proven.
Also, I want to live near interesting people, and it's hard to get a group of interesting people to move to a new location.
There are lots of poor people in developing nations who would benefit from moving to seasteads. But it's unclear whether they have enough capital to arrange that. How about a charity to help the third world poor emigrate to a seastead? It'd be a great way to offset the harm done by Trump. But most Trump opponents want to fight Trump and/or control a powerful government. Where are the altruists who want to just bypass the problems created by Trump's immigration policies?
Conclusion
In sum, the book has some parts that are worth reading, but it often flounders by aiming for an unimportant audience.
A better book on seasteading was available online in 2004. See it on the wayback machine. It helped start a movement of activists, which fizzled due to the difficulty of attracting enough money for a cruise ship sized experiment.
This year's book seems like a buoy to mark the shoals where the movement ran aground.
The book's style is too much like a newspaper. Rather than focus on the main advantages of seasteading, it focuses on the concerns of the average person, and on how seasteading might affect them. It quotes interesting people extensively, while being vague about whether the authors are just reporting that those people have ideas, or whether the authors have checked that the ideas are correct. Many of the ideas seem rather fishy.
I suspect that seasteading's biggest need now is businessmen and/or VCs who can start cruise-ship-sized projects. Yet the book seems aimed more at creating broad, shallow support among ordinary readers than it is at inspiring competent entrepreneurs.
"Humanity is poised to plunge in 2050."
Billions of people will face famine in 2050! We're destroying cropland at a sickening pace!
But that's not a problem, because more than half the earth's surface is water that can be farmed!
These are examples of the mix of doom-saying and plans for salvation that pervades the first half of the book. For most of these alleged crises, they fail to convince me the danger is sufficiently high to be a strong reason for seasteading.
The parts about about needing to farm the seas are moderately plausible, but not convincing enough to tempt me to invest in such ventures. And I'm a bit unclear on the connection between farming the seas and having lots of non-farmers live there.
The authors want us to imagine that seaweed is also going to solve our obesity problem. That reflects a pretty confused understanding of what causes obesity. The availability of healthy foods isn't going to stop us from overeating food that is more addictive. The book is also somewhat misleading about seaweed nutrition: "Spirulina is more than 60 percent protein, more than triple the amount in beef, with more than triple the amount of vitamin B12 found in animal liver". But there's some controversy over the bioavailability of that B12, and the protein comparison would look rather different if they compared dry spirulina with dried beef or fresh spirulina with fresh beef. The benefits of seaweed are a small part of the book, but I'm picking on them because I know enough about the topic to criticize misleading claims, and because the book's problems with this topic seem fairly representative of the book's quality.
Energy and the environment
Scattered throughout the book are occasional hints that something related to seasteading will replace oil as fuel. "If biofuel technology had no future, fossil fuel giants would not be investing so heavily." How heavily? They don't say. They left me skeptical that biofuel will be competitive with oil - aren't falling solar energy costs going to drive down oil prices?
The authors claim that pessimists say peak oil has happened, and "the most optimistic analysts say [peak oil in] 2050". Huh? I predict peak oil around 2020 because we'll switch to better energy sources soon. I expect peak oil to be about as important an issue in 2050 as the Y2k problem is today.
The book's subtitle mentions "restore the environment" first among the benefits of seasteads. It suggests ways that seasteads could solve the problems of rising CO2 levels. The book convinced me that those solutions are worth trying. But we're not suffering from a shortage of plans to mitigate global warming. There are promising charities such as Cool Earth that haven't attracted as much money as people spent to see An Inconvenient Truth. That suggests the main obstacle is translating symbolic opposition to climate change into useful results.
I expected someone such as Patri Friedman, who comes from a family of good economists, would do a competent job of focusing on incentives. Yet the book talks about climate change while paying virtually no attention to the incentive problems. Was Patri captured by pirates before that section of the book was written?
The book often cites cruise ships as evidence for the feasibility of most aspects of seasteading. Yet the book is fairly silent about the uninspiring environmental impact of cruise ships.
There are good climate-related arguments for seasteading. Seasteaders won't face as much risk from climate change as landlubbers. Few seas have dangerous heat waves. Seasteads will barely notice rising sea levels. Maybe increased hurricanes will force seasteaders to move to slightly less convenient places. The main threat would be acidification, which might force seasteaders to use expensive farms that have their own pH-controlled water. But the book's focus on apocalypse 2050 leaves these more modest arguments shrouded in fog.
Let a thousand nations bloom?
The second half of the book is more impressive, pointing out the value of experimenting with new political systems.
The book's version of this argument relies too much on ancient Greece and the U.S. western frontier as examples. It's quite possible that the decentralized political structure there contributed to the dominance of western civilization. But it's hard to verify that hypothesis: the good results could have been due to good European culture or genes or something.
The argument for more experiments is more convincing when supplemented with examples from industry. Lessig's book The Future of Ideas has a good perspective on this, with good evidence that (pre-breakup) AT&T would never have chosen to adopt the internet, but rules limiting its choice over phone line uses enabled more innovative entities to do so.
The case for more experiments with political systems depends somewhat on the claim that nobody knows what types of government work well. The authors provide good examples of political disputes where we should doubt our wisdom: some countries do well with low taxes, some do well with high taxes. Examples of good government span much of the left to right political spectrum (Scandinavia, Mauritius, Singapore).
But some of this confusion over good government comes from people focusing too much attention on issues that help us signal our ideological affiliation (tax rates, transgender bathrooms, etc). Those issues are selected for being somewhat immune to easy empirical tests that disprove one side.
When I try to look for patterns among the more successful new nations/city states, I see some common features. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Mauritius all adopted a British court system (and Dubai partly did that) around the time they started outperforming their neighbors. Other nations that I'd be ok with living in tend to have somewhat similar court systems.
Low corruption seems like another pretty good indicator of how good a country is (see Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index). Maybe that's a large part of what makes a political system work well. It's unclear what causes some nations to have less corrupt governments than others. So I can't tell whether more experiments will cause us to stumble on good ways to produce low-corruption nations, or whether the next Singapores and Dubais will mostly require seeding new nations with residents who have high moral standards.
Another approach I'd try if I were designing a seastead city-state would be to figure out what Silicon Valley did right. Annalee Saxenian's Regional Advantage suggests that there are a few key differences in laws (e.g. non-compete agreements are mostly unenforceable), but that most of what made Silicon Valley excel was culture: greater willingness to share information with potential competitors, more willingness to hire people who previously worked for a failed startup, etc.
So it's a bit less clear than the book wants us to believe that we need lots of experimentation with new legal systems.
There's also a chapter on health that talks too much about projects that are only marginally related to seasteading. Medical tourism is a good idea, both as a means to help finance seasteads, and as a means to improve medical care (mainly via incentives for existing hospitals to be more competitive). But I doubt it will become a large industry (at least in the developed world), due to the inconvenience of travel (especially when sick), and due to most people in developed nations having care paid by insurance and/or government.
Customers?
Where are the people who will pay to live on the first big seasteads?
The book often mentions cruise ships as evidence that seasteading is feasible. Yet cruise ships are also evidence that there isn't strong demand for the benefits of full-fledged seasteads - if there were such demand, why aren't cruise ships trying to satisfy it?
I want lots more choices of political systems to exist, so that I'll have more options, but I'm not in any hurry to try them out. I'm sufficiently risk-averse about political systems that I want to wait until new ones are proven.
Also, I want to live near interesting people, and it's hard to get a group of interesting people to move to a new location.
There are lots of poor people in developing nations who would benefit from moving to seasteads. But it's unclear whether they have enough capital to arrange that. How about a charity to help the third world poor emigrate to a seastead? It'd be a great way to offset the harm done by Trump. But most Trump opponents want to fight Trump and/or control a powerful government. Where are the altruists who want to just bypass the problems created by Trump's immigration policies?
Conclusion
In sum, the book has some parts that are worth reading, but it often flounders by aiming for an unimportant audience.
A better book on seasteading was available online in 2004. See it on the wayback machine. It helped start a movement of activists, which fizzled due to the difficulty of attracting enough money for a cruise ship sized experiment.
This year's book seems like a buoy to mark the shoals where the movement ran aground.
November 15, 2017
Love this...brilliant ideas, witty writing, everything about the future that we need to consider! Quirk is amazing: read this book!
March 28, 2017
Having been vaguely familiar with the idea of seasteads (city-states built on platforms in the ocean) since the 1990s, I was a long time skeptic before reading this book. After having read it, I have a whole new outlook on the possibilities of seasteading and its ultimate viability.
It may sound fantastical for thousands or even millions of people to leave the solid land they've inhabited since the beginnings of humanity. But Quirk and Friedman make the argument that it may be the only way to in fact save humanity. And even if you're not an apocalyptic doomsdayer, the idea of seasteading has something for everyone who cares about any aspect of the world. Whether the primary concern of the reader is CO2 emissions, the food supply, imminent water shortage, rising sea levels, the energy grid, global poverty, or civil liberties, apparently seasteading has got you covered.
To some extent, _Seasteading_ does ask for a leap of faith. After all, we still for the most part, live on land. But upon reading the book, seasteading seems closer to reality than a pie-in-the-sky dream. The authors argue that for the most part, the technologies for self-sustaining floating platforms already exist; all that is left is for people and corporations to take the plunge and be pioneers. Not only is this futuristic technology already available, the authors note that cruise ships functionally *are* in many ways floating cities which largely govern themselves and provide for their temporary "citizens" at prices often significantly lower than land-loving vacationers.
You might not be convinced by to pack up all your possessions and join the new frontier of ocean dwellers, but at the very least, _Seasteading_ should open your mind to the possibility of doing so, and possibly sooner than you could imagine. For that alone, _Seasteading_ has jumped into the lead for my favourite book of 2017.
It may sound fantastical for thousands or even millions of people to leave the solid land they've inhabited since the beginnings of humanity. But Quirk and Friedman make the argument that it may be the only way to in fact save humanity. And even if you're not an apocalyptic doomsdayer, the idea of seasteading has something for everyone who cares about any aspect of the world. Whether the primary concern of the reader is CO2 emissions, the food supply, imminent water shortage, rising sea levels, the energy grid, global poverty, or civil liberties, apparently seasteading has got you covered.
To some extent, _Seasteading_ does ask for a leap of faith. After all, we still for the most part, live on land. But upon reading the book, seasteading seems closer to reality than a pie-in-the-sky dream. The authors argue that for the most part, the technologies for self-sustaining floating platforms already exist; all that is left is for people and corporations to take the plunge and be pioneers. Not only is this futuristic technology already available, the authors note that cruise ships functionally *are* in many ways floating cities which largely govern themselves and provide for their temporary "citizens" at prices often significantly lower than land-loving vacationers.
You might not be convinced by to pack up all your possessions and join the new frontier of ocean dwellers, but at the very least, _Seasteading_ should open your mind to the possibility of doing so, and possibly sooner than you could imagine. For that alone, _Seasteading_ has jumped into the lead for my favourite book of 2017.
May 20, 2019
This is a better book than I expected but, oddly, much of it is has only a limited relation to seasteading, as if there weren’t enough to say about a topic that is fascinating in and of itself. I found some of the other topics equally interesting, such as seaweed/algae and fish farming in the ocean (although some of this was overdone, something true throughout the book). I found the long section on medical tourism, which might include seasteads, less interesting.
Much of the book’s bulk seemed to me a way to get around the usual focus on engineering and libertarianism. I didn’t find some of the pooh-poohing about libertarianism that convincing. What the book needed was some thoughts on what it would be like to live on the sea in a way different than on cruise ships (the usual comparison, along with oil rigs, but that’s only for days at a time for all but the few, except for those for whom it’s a job, not a lifestyle). I found most of the comparisons unconvincing. Seasteads are going to be something different; that should be the starting point. The fact that they appeal primarily to men (like the American frontier, the authors point out) is another problem that needs more discussion (this is also true of oil rigs and all sorts of ships, a comparison I don’t think the authors make).
Much of the book’s bulk seemed to me a way to get around the usual focus on engineering and libertarianism. I didn’t find some of the pooh-poohing about libertarianism that convincing. What the book needed was some thoughts on what it would be like to live on the sea in a way different than on cruise ships (the usual comparison, along with oil rigs, but that’s only for days at a time for all but the few, except for those for whom it’s a job, not a lifestyle). I found most of the comparisons unconvincing. Seasteads are going to be something different; that should be the starting point. The fact that they appeal primarily to men (like the American frontier, the authors point out) is another problem that needs more discussion (this is also true of oil rigs and all sorts of ships, a comparison I don’t think the authors make).
August 19, 2017
Three and a half stars. This book starts off with a plethora of "Club of Rome" type blather; this time with an end date of 2050. It begins to redeem itself somewhat by offering an abundance of solutions all based on and around seasteading. Through a series of interviews and ambitious visualizations it paints a picture of a possible future where many of this era's problems are to be solved by moving offshore.
Food, energy, water and political strife could very well be solved through careful use of the ocean's abundance. The solutions described in this book are clearly explained and possibly even understated in the impact they could have. The book promotes the Seasteading Institute as a clearing house for all these different ideas and more. Unfortunately, it becomes muddled in a slow death by committee. In an organization supposedly so well developed and far reaching, no one can decide if seasteading should be based on small "farm" communities or a large aquapolis featuring tourism and medical care. Then the book devolves even further by totally destroying it's arguments for the advantages of loosely regulated communities by a call to surpass the FDA in regulation... WTF? While this book offers hope and insight, it is mostly a blurred vision.
Food, energy, water and political strife could very well be solved through careful use of the ocean's abundance. The solutions described in this book are clearly explained and possibly even understated in the impact they could have. The book promotes the Seasteading Institute as a clearing house for all these different ideas and more. Unfortunately, it becomes muddled in a slow death by committee. In an organization supposedly so well developed and far reaching, no one can decide if seasteading should be based on small "farm" communities or a large aquapolis featuring tourism and medical care. Then the book devolves even further by totally destroying it's arguments for the advantages of loosely regulated communities by a call to surpass the FDA in regulation... WTF? While this book offers hope and insight, it is mostly a blurred vision.
September 20, 2017
Book got me amped. As far as a hype book from a project insider goes, this one rules. Perfect combination of environmentalism, open markets, and free immigration. I think there is a fair likelihood that projects like this in coming decades (hopefully sooner) short circuit the debate of economic growth vs. climate change as sectors like algae farming continue to grow and are able to turn carbon into fuel, food, and profit. Plenty of other things to get excited about on all fronts. Check it out.
April 9, 2018
This is a very broad survey of rising uses of the sea, from sea-based agriculture to floating cities. The coverage includes some technical depth, but not a lot – it’s a very readable book. It also includes some economic depth, as well as political ramifications, and includes sections on floating hospitals, renewable energy from algae, and the cruise industry. I appreciated the evaluation of the economic benefits of islands and how those could be further optimized with a sea based platform. I found this interesting over a wide variety of topics related to “seasteading,” and I appreciated the occasional humor in the writing.
May 7, 2018
Really, we forgot we have 2/3 of Earth in international waters not utilized:
January 15, 2020
Seasteading is perhaps the most necessary jump the human race should make in the coming fifty years (gain traction within ten, disrupt existing land-based monopolies within fifty) but it comes with a range of safety concerns, engineering challenges and will not be easy. On the bright side, we already have the collective capability to crack this nut. It is also in our interests and the planet’s interest to do so.
I live in a society which is over-regulated and too safe, where adventures are no longer possible.
I was reading this book, which has the most placid sea in the entire world on its cover, imagining being lulled to sleep with a nonchalantly tilted daiquiri, when some little part of me questioned the idyll. What about winter heating, falling overboard, lavatory paper? Whispers: Stay cautious before saying goodbye to land forever. Over-engineer your design before making any commitment and don’t leave your life in the slippery fingers of Neptune.
What are the things you take for granted which you might have to give up by leaving land? For example, a lot of the information points to locating the seastead in calm water areas, ideally along the equator. These areas also provide productivity advantages. The thing is, my country is nowhere near the equator and I don’t know how people down there would treat me. Psychologically, I’d find it easier to adapt to a seastead a few hundred miles away from a country that at least speaks my language and where I could understand what they broadcast. It’s a confidence thing. Somewhere with a shoe repair service, conditioner, where you can pop in.
I think there’s a great psychological difference between a house on a stick, just off shore (effectively a rich kid’s beach hut) and a fully ocean-borne artificial island hundreds of miles out in the sickening waves of international no man’s land. Seasteads can avoid storms with their mobility, I understand that, but there should be naming differentiation to sort static coastal fixtures into their own category. Sealand, for example, has to sit out a storm. I’d move to a nomadic island full of physical and social problem solvers because that represents freedom and excitement, but wouldn’t move to a fixed platform such as Sealand which, to me, is a tomb going nowhere.
Societies 101, how to do it:
Stage 1: Make a structure at sea (not a boat) which gives you a framework for the next stages.
Stage 2: Decide where to position it, either “A” close to shore to be protected by shallow waters and a strong host or “B” far out at sea to escape all land-based government rules, regulations and taxes.
If “A”: Set up your businesses (e.g. seafood, algae for food/fuel, seaweed, tourism, Airbnb) or eco-projects (e.g. carbon capture, de-acidification, repair of underwater dead zones).
If “B”:
Stage 3: Design the software for the new society, the social laws, rules, penalties, the transparent business footing and the power relationship (checks and balances) between the population and the decision-makers.
Stage 4: Get into profit one way or another, install showers, be wise in diplomacy, try to build a positive reputation with the UN and attract immigrant settlers to your workforce.
Stage 5: In the long term, work out how you’re going to carry the unproductive fraction of the population, to stay sustainable.
Stage 6: Innovate constantly. Grow. Become increasingly safe, wealthy and needed by external actors. This allows the society to move into interdependent complexity, niche specialisations and services. Then you’re exporting not just seaweed biscuits, fish, food and fuel but also profitable services like any other advanced market economy.
Stage 7: Now you’re financially and socially solvent, go for full independence and sovereignty. This also makes governing this society a valuable job to hold, so anticipate power grabs by narcissistic opportunists with self-serving ideologies.
Stage 8: Daiquiri time.
This book is written partially from an economic value perspective, where every step of the colonisation of the oceans covers its costs, either quickly (seafood) or eventually (OTEC power and water). This helps to set the book’s tone in common sense and hopes to reassure investors that it isn’t a hippie commune concept, which is what would happen if the population only went there at weekends. The first wave of oceangoing seasteaders might have no option but to burn their bridges with their country of origin (especially if regulated against) and find their passports have been cancelled (it’s possible), so they would have to be commercially successful quickly or suffer.
If a profit can be demonstrated, the investment to scale up will be pledged by the open market (an obvious, tried and trusted plan). This book doesn’t solicit donations from caring people who feel sorry about the state of the seas, which is a good line to take because that is not a sound basis for funding anything. The first seasteads will probably be owned by fair-weather playboys but the wave of colonists who will make them into functioning societies are the working poor, so thought has to be given about how they can get in (lessen the financial bar, offer free bed and board for work).
Seasteading appeals mostly to fit and able single men, hardy sailor-types, so this movement needs to go through an establishing phase before women, babies, elderly and impaired people can feel confident enough to be on the new frontier. A society where people arrive aged 20 and leave aged 40 and they’re mostly men won’t work because it is an industrial workplace, not a home or a village. When someone is born in a seastead on international waters, they can never leave without becoming a refugee, so the society requires cradle to grave planning. Maybe not on day one.
This book portrays seasteading with unflinching optimism, a no-brainer, which I understand is the kind of supportive energy people need if they’ve already decided to make the seasteading leap of faith – but I fear it could also distract people from the hard realities they’ll have to put up with on the grounds that “the cruise industry have already thought of them”. Not every seasteading community will have the cruise industry’s megacity budget for desalination plants, backup desalination plants, hospital people/equipment, separate vessels to get to safety on if the main seastead is struck by a whale (etc.) or even the speed and high sides that require pirates to be impossibly accomplished steeplejacks, or give up. Some problems have been solved by the cruise industry, but they’re not necessarily applicable to other formats of ocean survival where the issues are more acute (isolation, protection) - unless you can also afford a ten million pound hull.
The seasteading movement, which I’ve just spent ten minutes picking holes in, represents a risk but it is a risk we will be compelled to take anyway under the combined pressures of population rise, sea-level rise/land loss, food constraints, water and fuel resource scarcity and environment damage. If we already know this is the human race’s inevitable direction of travel, we should get on with it. I should say that the book discusses a framework to enable the creation of new societies but does not attempt to tell the reader what a new society should be or how to run it. For me, that’s the fun bit, playing Plato.
I can imagine becoming a seasteader through choice. I could also invest what I would have saved for a land house in an aquatic business enterprise instead and be confident it would accommodate me, feed me, pay me back and give me a sense of accomplishment. I could accept a new governance system if I had a way to change things if they weren’t compatible with my balanced values. I’m not sure I’d want to do this alone but otherwise would be an early adopter if I could get the money together.
I live in a society which is over-regulated and too safe, where adventures are no longer possible.
I was reading this book, which has the most placid sea in the entire world on its cover, imagining being lulled to sleep with a nonchalantly tilted daiquiri, when some little part of me questioned the idyll. What about winter heating, falling overboard, lavatory paper? Whispers: Stay cautious before saying goodbye to land forever. Over-engineer your design before making any commitment and don’t leave your life in the slippery fingers of Neptune.
What are the things you take for granted which you might have to give up by leaving land? For example, a lot of the information points to locating the seastead in calm water areas, ideally along the equator. These areas also provide productivity advantages. The thing is, my country is nowhere near the equator and I don’t know how people down there would treat me. Psychologically, I’d find it easier to adapt to a seastead a few hundred miles away from a country that at least speaks my language and where I could understand what they broadcast. It’s a confidence thing. Somewhere with a shoe repair service, conditioner, where you can pop in.
I think there’s a great psychological difference between a house on a stick, just off shore (effectively a rich kid’s beach hut) and a fully ocean-borne artificial island hundreds of miles out in the sickening waves of international no man’s land. Seasteads can avoid storms with their mobility, I understand that, but there should be naming differentiation to sort static coastal fixtures into their own category. Sealand, for example, has to sit out a storm. I’d move to a nomadic island full of physical and social problem solvers because that represents freedom and excitement, but wouldn’t move to a fixed platform such as Sealand which, to me, is a tomb going nowhere.
Societies 101, how to do it:
Stage 1: Make a structure at sea (not a boat) which gives you a framework for the next stages.
Stage 2: Decide where to position it, either “A” close to shore to be protected by shallow waters and a strong host or “B” far out at sea to escape all land-based government rules, regulations and taxes.
If “A”: Set up your businesses (e.g. seafood, algae for food/fuel, seaweed, tourism, Airbnb) or eco-projects (e.g. carbon capture, de-acidification, repair of underwater dead zones).
If “B”:
Stage 3: Design the software for the new society, the social laws, rules, penalties, the transparent business footing and the power relationship (checks and balances) between the population and the decision-makers.
Stage 4: Get into profit one way or another, install showers, be wise in diplomacy, try to build a positive reputation with the UN and attract immigrant settlers to your workforce.
Stage 5: In the long term, work out how you’re going to carry the unproductive fraction of the population, to stay sustainable.
Stage 6: Innovate constantly. Grow. Become increasingly safe, wealthy and needed by external actors. This allows the society to move into interdependent complexity, niche specialisations and services. Then you’re exporting not just seaweed biscuits, fish, food and fuel but also profitable services like any other advanced market economy.
Stage 7: Now you’re financially and socially solvent, go for full independence and sovereignty. This also makes governing this society a valuable job to hold, so anticipate power grabs by narcissistic opportunists with self-serving ideologies.
Stage 8: Daiquiri time.
This book is written partially from an economic value perspective, where every step of the colonisation of the oceans covers its costs, either quickly (seafood) or eventually (OTEC power and water). This helps to set the book’s tone in common sense and hopes to reassure investors that it isn’t a hippie commune concept, which is what would happen if the population only went there at weekends. The first wave of oceangoing seasteaders might have no option but to burn their bridges with their country of origin (especially if regulated against) and find their passports have been cancelled (it’s possible), so they would have to be commercially successful quickly or suffer.
If a profit can be demonstrated, the investment to scale up will be pledged by the open market (an obvious, tried and trusted plan). This book doesn’t solicit donations from caring people who feel sorry about the state of the seas, which is a good line to take because that is not a sound basis for funding anything. The first seasteads will probably be owned by fair-weather playboys but the wave of colonists who will make them into functioning societies are the working poor, so thought has to be given about how they can get in (lessen the financial bar, offer free bed and board for work).
Seasteading appeals mostly to fit and able single men, hardy sailor-types, so this movement needs to go through an establishing phase before women, babies, elderly and impaired people can feel confident enough to be on the new frontier. A society where people arrive aged 20 and leave aged 40 and they’re mostly men won’t work because it is an industrial workplace, not a home or a village. When someone is born in a seastead on international waters, they can never leave without becoming a refugee, so the society requires cradle to grave planning. Maybe not on day one.
This book portrays seasteading with unflinching optimism, a no-brainer, which I understand is the kind of supportive energy people need if they’ve already decided to make the seasteading leap of faith – but I fear it could also distract people from the hard realities they’ll have to put up with on the grounds that “the cruise industry have already thought of them”. Not every seasteading community will have the cruise industry’s megacity budget for desalination plants, backup desalination plants, hospital people/equipment, separate vessels to get to safety on if the main seastead is struck by a whale (etc.) or even the speed and high sides that require pirates to be impossibly accomplished steeplejacks, or give up. Some problems have been solved by the cruise industry, but they’re not necessarily applicable to other formats of ocean survival where the issues are more acute (isolation, protection) - unless you can also afford a ten million pound hull.
The seasteading movement, which I’ve just spent ten minutes picking holes in, represents a risk but it is a risk we will be compelled to take anyway under the combined pressures of population rise, sea-level rise/land loss, food constraints, water and fuel resource scarcity and environment damage. If we already know this is the human race’s inevitable direction of travel, we should get on with it. I should say that the book discusses a framework to enable the creation of new societies but does not attempt to tell the reader what a new society should be or how to run it. For me, that’s the fun bit, playing Plato.
I can imagine becoming a seasteader through choice. I could also invest what I would have saved for a land house in an aquatic business enterprise instead and be confident it would accommodate me, feed me, pay me back and give me a sense of accomplishment. I could accept a new governance system if I had a way to change things if they weren’t compatible with my balanced values. I’m not sure I’d want to do this alone but otherwise would be an early adopter if I could get the money together.
March 8, 2018
This book has given me tremendous hope that the world just might be okay in spite of humans and because of human ingenuity.
Joe Quirk is very excited about the Libertarian options Seasteading opens, which actually less rule of law sounds like a scary wild west meets sci-fi scenario to me. The book does answer the question why do this and the options for correcting the damage we've done to the planet are the most exciting to me. He does very thoroughly cover what work is being done out there by whom and what needs to be done to make Seasteading a reality.
The options of how we can live, create fuel and feed ourselves by utilizing the ocean seems a thousand times more feasible to me than colonizing Mars with Elon Musk.
Joe Quirk is very excited about the Libertarian options Seasteading opens, which actually less rule of law sounds like a scary wild west meets sci-fi scenario to me. The book does answer the question why do this and the options for correcting the damage we've done to the planet are the most exciting to me. He does very thoroughly cover what work is being done out there by whom and what needs to be done to make Seasteading a reality.
The options of how we can live, create fuel and feed ourselves by utilizing the ocean seems a thousand times more feasible to me than colonizing Mars with Elon Musk.
October 15, 2019
Fascinating subject, entertaining read, and a glimpse of what the future may hold for humanity. Seasteading is a radical solution that, the authors argue, may help solve a number of serious problems in the world today. By building floating towns and cities, cultivating the natural resources of the ocean, and forming numerous new governing systems, humanity could positively impact climate change, resource depletion, poverty, and oppression.
If that sounds like an investment pitch or campaign ad, that was the intent. Joe Quick and Patri Friedman's book is a sales pitch to the readers about their life project: seasteads. They take an entrepreneurial approach, as if speaking to prospective investors about a great business opportunity. Only this one isn't just about profits.
We have not developed the ocean, at all. We use it for transit and fish in a small portion of it but there is so much that is untouched and unused. That is now changing. One company is developing fisheries that would float in the ocean, which offer numerous advantages to stationery ones or any that are inland. Another company believes blue algae could feed the hungry, and reduce our dependence on carbon emitting land sources of food (cattle ranching, traditional farming). Several energy companies have proposed methods of providing energy from the ocean to energize floating cities, and give them the means to move when needed. Another company wants to funnel agricultural runoff, sewage and other waste from the land and feed it to species of algae that would consume it happily.
The authors believe that, and give a great case for, seasteading potentially reversing the carbon cycle, or at least moving it back into equilibrium rather than have carbon dioxide continue to get pumped into the atmosphere. They also seek to restore the ecosystem of the ocean that is damaged by climate change and agricultural runoff. New technologies stemming from seasteads could potentially do this. Energy sources from the sea are renewable and non-carbon burning.
Food production is the second objective. The authors are convinced we will all starve in a couple decades. The ocean is a vast untapped source of food.
Finally, they see seasteads as laboratories for government experimentation. This was the original vision for the states within the US, but since we are now much more centralized and uniform, that is no longer the case. There are few laboratories for policy in the world, but the creation of new micro-nations could change that.
There are other claims, stories of entrepreneurs and their developmental stage companies, and other pitches as well. Many of them fantastic in their projected upside and no down side at all! They just need that big chunk of startup cash.
Quirk and Friedman are in no way trying to be rigorous in his analysis or objective in his conclusions. Their claims of huge payoffs with no negatives is hard to believe, and some of this numbers don't make a lot of sense. Not to say that there isn't huge potential seasteading, only that I feel the authors oversold it at times.
This leads to my biggest criticism of the book. Quirk and Friedman played a little fast and loose with statistics. I wasn't checking their work but stumbled upon two factual inaccuracies claimed in the book, ones I confirmed easily thanks to the internet. One example, Quirk claimed the overpopulated island of Japan was facing a growing overpopulation crisis. Japan has been facing a demographic crunch for years now, shrinking in population, not growing. It is getting older and there are fewer young people to help pay for the generous retirement benefits of seniors, let alone take care of them. Another was a GDP comparison of states that I won't bother getting into, but suffice to say their math was wrong.
The authors used one chapter to put up straw man objections and knocked them down with witty responses, but in some cases the responses were underwhelming and intentionally sidestepped the real concern underlying the question. For example, the concern of supplying small seasteads. Quirk responds that cities like Chicago and Kiev are supplied by waterways and do not produce their own food nor all of the good its consumes. This is true but both cities are at the centers of vast land trading networks, meaning a lot of ships have good reason to make their way there and unload. Often times, much of their cargo isn't staying in that port city.
For a Seastead, there is no trade network. Everything is being dropped off for that town or city only. This isn't prohibitive but the point is don't expect a thriving, busy harbor for these seastead towns. It could work but it is hard to believe it will all be so easy, just like Chicago or Singapore or whatever.
Overall, this book makes a great case for seasteading. It is an investment pitch and sort of a rally call for a movement that could solve many of the biggest problems plaguing the world today. In fact, it offers promise of solutions to problems that have plagued us for a long time. The authors oversell it at times with wild numbers, and do make a couple errors as they play fast and loose with statistics. Politicians and entrepreneurs do this all the time, so its not like its reckless or dishonest. They aren't trying to consciously deceive anyone, they honestly believe in this endeavor. After reading I felt like seasteading is exciting, has promise, but won't be easy to develop, and may not solve all our problems. At least not in my lifetime.
I'm convinced it could contribute to how we will ultimately face these challenges.
If that sounds like an investment pitch or campaign ad, that was the intent. Joe Quick and Patri Friedman's book is a sales pitch to the readers about their life project: seasteads. They take an entrepreneurial approach, as if speaking to prospective investors about a great business opportunity. Only this one isn't just about profits.
We have not developed the ocean, at all. We use it for transit and fish in a small portion of it but there is so much that is untouched and unused. That is now changing. One company is developing fisheries that would float in the ocean, which offer numerous advantages to stationery ones or any that are inland. Another company believes blue algae could feed the hungry, and reduce our dependence on carbon emitting land sources of food (cattle ranching, traditional farming). Several energy companies have proposed methods of providing energy from the ocean to energize floating cities, and give them the means to move when needed. Another company wants to funnel agricultural runoff, sewage and other waste from the land and feed it to species of algae that would consume it happily.
The authors believe that, and give a great case for, seasteading potentially reversing the carbon cycle, or at least moving it back into equilibrium rather than have carbon dioxide continue to get pumped into the atmosphere. They also seek to restore the ecosystem of the ocean that is damaged by climate change and agricultural runoff. New technologies stemming from seasteads could potentially do this. Energy sources from the sea are renewable and non-carbon burning.
Food production is the second objective. The authors are convinced we will all starve in a couple decades. The ocean is a vast untapped source of food.
Finally, they see seasteads as laboratories for government experimentation. This was the original vision for the states within the US, but since we are now much more centralized and uniform, that is no longer the case. There are few laboratories for policy in the world, but the creation of new micro-nations could change that.
There are other claims, stories of entrepreneurs and their developmental stage companies, and other pitches as well. Many of them fantastic in their projected upside and no down side at all! They just need that big chunk of startup cash.
Quirk and Friedman are in no way trying to be rigorous in his analysis or objective in his conclusions. Their claims of huge payoffs with no negatives is hard to believe, and some of this numbers don't make a lot of sense. Not to say that there isn't huge potential seasteading, only that I feel the authors oversold it at times.
This leads to my biggest criticism of the book. Quirk and Friedman played a little fast and loose with statistics. I wasn't checking their work but stumbled upon two factual inaccuracies claimed in the book, ones I confirmed easily thanks to the internet. One example, Quirk claimed the overpopulated island of Japan was facing a growing overpopulation crisis. Japan has been facing a demographic crunch for years now, shrinking in population, not growing. It is getting older and there are fewer young people to help pay for the generous retirement benefits of seniors, let alone take care of them. Another was a GDP comparison of states that I won't bother getting into, but suffice to say their math was wrong.
The authors used one chapter to put up straw man objections and knocked them down with witty responses, but in some cases the responses were underwhelming and intentionally sidestepped the real concern underlying the question. For example, the concern of supplying small seasteads. Quirk responds that cities like Chicago and Kiev are supplied by waterways and do not produce their own food nor all of the good its consumes. This is true but both cities are at the centers of vast land trading networks, meaning a lot of ships have good reason to make their way there and unload. Often times, much of their cargo isn't staying in that port city.
For a Seastead, there is no trade network. Everything is being dropped off for that town or city only. This isn't prohibitive but the point is don't expect a thriving, busy harbor for these seastead towns. It could work but it is hard to believe it will all be so easy, just like Chicago or Singapore or whatever.
Overall, this book makes a great case for seasteading. It is an investment pitch and sort of a rally call for a movement that could solve many of the biggest problems plaguing the world today. In fact, it offers promise of solutions to problems that have plagued us for a long time. The authors oversell it at times with wild numbers, and do make a couple errors as they play fast and loose with statistics. Politicians and entrepreneurs do this all the time, so its not like its reckless or dishonest. They aren't trying to consciously deceive anyone, they honestly believe in this endeavor. After reading I felt like seasteading is exciting, has promise, but won't be easy to develop, and may not solve all our problems. At least not in my lifetime.
I'm convinced it could contribute to how we will ultimately face these challenges.
October 25, 2017
Decent introduction to the idea of Seasteading (offshore floating structures for long-term human occupation) from people involved in The Seasteading Institute, a non-profit which has been working on the idea for about a decade.
Describes a lot of the potential for Seasteads in the future (medical tourism, agriculture, energy), as well as some of the political innovations possible due to fundamentally mobile and reconfigurable communities.
Not a lot of interesting new content if you're already familiar with the idea; much more of an introduction for the public.
Describes a lot of the potential for Seasteads in the future (medical tourism, agriculture, energy), as well as some of the political innovations possible due to fundamentally mobile and reconfigurable communities.
Not a lot of interesting new content if you're already familiar with the idea; much more of an introduction for the public.
July 18, 2018
First of all, dial down the smugness - you have nothing to be smug about. All the exciting developments have very little inherently to do with seasteading. It's like describing the improvements in solar panels and claiming they vindicate seasteders. Secondly, all those successes come with huge caveats and uncertainties. This book is ridiculously optimistic and blindly one-sided. It might motivate people to investigate the subject but it sets them up for disappointment.
December 23, 2018
The book needs to be run through a copyeditor. There a few textual mistakes, such as "Roy Kurzweil" instead of "Ray Kurzweil" and mixing up survival rate and mortality rate.
If you put that aside, the content is very interesting. I've learned so much more about the international cruise industry, italian city-states, and algae farming. It dispels a lot of myths about seasteading and provides a new perspective of society. It's a fun book.
If you put that aside, the content is very interesting. I've learned so much more about the international cruise industry, italian city-states, and algae farming. It dispels a lot of myths about seasteading and provides a new perspective of society. It's a fun book.
March 19, 2018
I am so inspired by this book, knowing that we have a new frontier where:
Anyone can experiment with new, volunteer-based styles of governance;
Mankind advancing science, medicine and education can evolve;
Your fate is no longer decided by your birthplace
Anyone can experiment with new, volunteer-based styles of governance;
Mankind advancing science, medicine and education can evolve;
Your fate is no longer decided by your birthplace
June 15, 2022
Definitely some very interesting ideas, but I fear they're not thought until the end. The cruise ship industry that is taken as an inspiration is one of the most polluting industries on the planet and the whole book is full of heavy libertarian bias that strong governments are only bad for people.
January 4, 2019
An interesting read. A refreshing dose of optimism about the future of humanity and ecological stability of our „planet Ocean“.
November 21, 2017
"If you take anything from this, Seasteading is the story of migration."
Not very often does a book come along that makes claims that one eloquent solution will solve some of the worlds top, 11th hour problems. It's more than easy to be skeptical. Our current human skepticism is partially rooted in how much safety we in the developed world expect and crave. It also seems rooted in the lack of political cohesion we see daily around the world.
So many groups of people fighting over few amounts of resources; resources that pollute Earth.
It's wonderful to read about specific technologies that have been built to proof of concept, ready to scale up. All it needs now is the willpower of a conscious, willing generation. The Seasteading book is the food to grow this generation, and the blueprint to guide our course of action, if we are to overcome this stage in our Homo-sapien evolution.
Not very often does a book come along that makes claims that one eloquent solution will solve some of the worlds top, 11th hour problems. It's more than easy to be skeptical. Our current human skepticism is partially rooted in how much safety we in the developed world expect and crave. It also seems rooted in the lack of political cohesion we see daily around the world.
So many groups of people fighting over few amounts of resources; resources that pollute Earth.
It's wonderful to read about specific technologies that have been built to proof of concept, ready to scale up. All it needs now is the willpower of a conscious, willing generation. The Seasteading book is the food to grow this generation, and the blueprint to guide our course of action, if we are to overcome this stage in our Homo-sapien evolution.
April 15, 2024
I love this book because it proposes viable solutions to large-scale problems. Climate change is going to adversely affect billions of people, especially those in the coastal tropics. Seasteads - mobile, self-sufficient, regenerative homesteads on the ocean - offer a way for people to grow their own food in their own place while actually restoring the ecosystem instead of further degrading it. They are the way of the future, and this book outlines how to get there. Well done!
August 22, 2025
This book is interesting. It alternates fascinating possibilities and rambling boring facts. It feels like the answer to all our problems then a cult-y serving of koolaid. I learned a lot, and it gave me hope when I didn't think we had any anymore. Considering the book was published in 2017, it was interesting to see which forecasted facts proved true or false. I would love to see an update, post-COVID and everything else since 2020.
June 22, 2018
A rosy Utopia is painted for setting up floating cities on the world's oceans. Many problems exist for such an enterprise which are glossed over or proven answers are provided. The whole work reminds me of an old Johnny Paycheck song, "Rainbow Pie". Some of the major problems are the ones of cost, garbage and human waste, and potable water.
May 21, 2018
Super over-simplifies various problems seasteading would face as well as solutions but it is easily accessible, not too dry (haha) and the inventions that it explains that already exist are mind blowing.
May 26, 2018
Inspirational and provoking. The future of humanity certainly lies in colonizing the oceans. This books addresses all the practical and ethical concerns with building a new seavilization. This is something I hope to see happen within my lifetime.
June 18, 2018
Interesting read. However, I wonder why there’s not a mad rush to do this. From the way the author presents seasteading in the book and all its benefits, you would think people and investors would be flocking to do this.
September 16, 2019
A really fascinating look into the future of living on, mining, and farming the oceans. Lots of reasons to do it, but lots more work to do to get people on board. With so many doom-and-gloom books about the future on the shelves, this one is a breath of fresh air. Many good ideas here!
November 7, 2019
This book is interdisciplinary and insightful. It tackles war, environmental degradation, the energy crisis, dictatorships, famine, and more: all from the lens of building nations on the water. Though a generally libertarian book, it's great for people of all ideologies to consider.
August 21, 2025
Only read half of it before I was too exhausted by it.
Pros: Really cool ideas, painfully optimistic. I learned a lot and would love to learn more about the blue economy/revelation
Cons: defended Peter Thiel in the third chapter
Pros: Really cool ideas, painfully optimistic. I learned a lot and would love to learn more about the blue economy/revelation
Cons: defended Peter Thiel in the third chapter
October 2, 2017
The most inspiring book I have read in ages. Can not recommend high enough.
June 26, 2019
Oh my gosh - this book was torturous!
January 31, 2020
This book gave me hope for sustainable future.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews