I had a long thing I'd written.  Took me less than I half hour, but I have some work and I've been having immense computer troubles.  Needless to say, my compute rcrashed just before I posted so I'll try to post a brief summary in about 5-10 minutes.

Suffice to say seeing the colonization idea was enough to make me register here, forum addition issues aside.

Most of my post was a list of background: comparable projects and why they failed, but anywhen, when I have a working computer again I'll repost all that.

In the mean time, here's a rough outline of my idea.

Sorry that this is sketchy, background would probably help but I'm short on time now.

Here are the criterion for qualities that would be in a country ideal for my idea.  

Admittedly sone of them are likely tail-wagging-dog, but anywhen in approximate order of importance:

1. Sparse population density
2. Country desperate for development
3. Wide variety of climates in a given area
4. Large land area, cheap land.

Now here's the background for how my idea might work.

1. Preliminary plan.  More detailed version of my sketch.
2. Recruitment similar to the Free State project.  Preferably, members agree to live in this country for certain period out of the year.  I know that it would take a lot for me to renounce my US-citizenship, so residency would be the only requirement.  Even a thousand or couple members would probably work.
3. Plan for services to be offered.  The project ought have at several people or groups interested and able to provide high-tech services.  The homeland would be most plausible on an area already highly degraded enviromentally.  This might later be developed for agriculture, as with Israel, but the key is the high-tech (or even not so high tech, just modern) industry desired by third world countries.
4. Propose to candidated countries and finalize plan.  As for the proposal, should note that:  People with AS tend to be more intelligent and innovative than average. Since we're also bringing industry with us, this should prove an advantage in helping their country to develop.  First world, educated immigration to third world countries and subsequent development (when you live there you have more incentive than when you just invest there), so this should be another point. Basically, this would be mutually advantageous to all involved.  Considering the allowances that these countries make for corporations with little at stake, they might as well make similar allowances for people who would have a lot more invested.

The proposal should get out of the country the following concessions:

1. Non-interference in domestic affairs, within reason.
2. Exemption from key regulations and national taxes (this would allow us to levy our

own taxes in their place).
3. The ability to conduct our own economic affairs, as could any corporation.
4. Ultimately, it might be nice if we could have our own autonomous municipalities.

I also note that those already living within the area we would target should have the options of:

1. Non-interference from us, just as we would be somewhat seperate from the country, they could be the same from us.
2. Members of the project, regardless of whether or not they have AS.
3. Other?

Sorry that I don't have time to repost my precedents and justifications.

I'll do that at a future date (like with functional computer) and hope to show that this isn't as crazy as it sounds.

The problem with autonomy is that a government is not going to willingly give up control of anything, whatever the benefit to the citizenry may be.  They're going to want something in return, maybe a lot of somethings.  We would need to find somewhere with an already weak government, and have a lot of defenses in order to discourage agression, and THEN find some way to pay off interested parties.  

I have often thought about the possibility of taking people who thought like I did and secretly colonizing Antarctica.  That way, by the time everybody found out, we would have had time to build up a lot of strength, and the very harshness (which would be dealt with using technology) of the area would be an even greater discouragement to invaders.  

It's too bad we can't read your background, however.

I think building an artifical island might be a good idea; but there might still be problems. I've heard of an Italian who built an artifical island, and intended to make it a new country. The Italian military blew it up (no one was on it).

Perhaps a gigantic floating platform with areas dedicated to farming, industry, residence.  It could be flat or stacked; I like stacked, with maybe farming on top, then inductry, then comercial, and residence on the bottom, so you could have those nifty floor-windows and watch the sea life :smile:

Of course deep-sea mining technologies would have to be very highly developed, so we could drift around in international waters and harvest our own resources.  We would need powerful engines to make sure we could stay at least three hundred miles from shore (the standard extent of national jurisdiction, if I remember right), run life support, ventilation for the lower levels.  Perhaps some way of distilling gases from sea water?  

In spite of all these hardships, however, it would definitely be very cool :smile:

Well, there's Haiti. . .

It's not that the idea hasn't occured to me, it's just that whenever I think of schemes like that, Transvaal and Rhodesia come to mind.

Any governments do give up autonomy for benefits to them.

The Mormons in the US and Americans(though Santa Anna make the mistake of repealing this) and later Mennonites in Mexico were some of the examples I was going to use.

Funny, I've had similar ideas.  The problem is, it wouldn't be viable as a self-sufficient state (too much to produce own food), so an embargo could easily destroy the project.

Yeah, sorry.

I'll do it eventually.

My computer's still fritzy and barely functioning, but that doesn't seem to stop me from writing posts even longer than my original was.

That was in the Adriatic though.
Still, islands tend to have problems.  If you look at the history of microstates, only Sealand and some crazies in various deserts have survived, and these because the governments don't care enough to do anything about them.

Sounds like a concept I read about called sea-steading. I'm thinking if we were to obtain influence in a country with sea access we ould do that too, it would be expensive to manufacture enough in any reasonable time though, unless we had a factory devoted to making the things.

I think a large number of us would insist on having the exclusion provided by individual steads, which would make it even more difficult.

I know that generally I've decided I won't live on less than four acres when I grow up, and though I'm willing to pare that down when it would come to an Aspergian homeland project, I'm not willing to live in an apartment or without a yard.

Yeah, except that do you think we'd get away with that?

Developed companies want that for themselves, developing and undeveloped countries want that for themselves too, but not until they have the technology.

I'm thinking more that we need to prove that we're not spoiled brats incapable of supporting ourselves.

While neurological studies can't convince the idiot brigade, hard evidence ought at least quiet them.

A floating island is one of the most practical ideas (at least for an island from an engineering pov). It wouldn't need large engines; it could be ancorded insead (also, it would only need to be 200 miles from shore). There is a substance called pikecrete that may be useful for building it. It's 14% sawdust and 86% ice. It's strong and cheap but, of course it would melt, so it would need a cooling system; perhaps a Thermos-like covering (another good thing is that it could be froze some where cold and be taken like a barge to where it needs to be).

Getting power would be a challage. Tidal or solar energy would posibilites.

This idea isn't as impracical as one might think. It just needs the right planning.

I would not like the food:  fish, fish, seaweed, seal etc.   Yuck!

Mennonites have colonized Belize without much trouble from the government there.  They have two growing seasons per year.  If you can grow your own food and maybe have sheep or cotton for clothing, you can almost be self-sufficient.  Either self-sufficiency or production of a commodity that is in demand is required.  The Hutterites colonies have large farms and factories.  Why would you want to go somewhere that is so cold?

I like fish, assuming that it's fresh, and seal might be nice.  Don't like seaweed though.

Belize?  Really?

Belize would be nice, as it's one of the world's most sparsely populated countries.  I'd figured it was too developed to work.

Hutterites?
Never heard of em.

I'd rather go somewhere too cold than too warm myself.

Mexico City was nice, Oaxaca was pretty decent, Acapulco was so unbearably muggy I could barely move.
Problem is that you can't grow food on Antarctica.

Belize does have that chocolate-growing thing going on, always a plus even despite the heat.

The main language in Belize is English, so that might make things easier. Though I wouldn't like the humidity (a poll some time ago showed that many aspie don't like heat).

Noted: Edited. I accsidently wrote would instead of wouldn't (reguarding humidity).

This post was last modified: 04-12-2006 07:34 AM by Logical paradox.

Only slightly smaller than Vermont with a third of the population.

The heat was primary reason I was thinking it might make sense to look at mountainous countries.  Nice temperature differentiation.  And to find a suitable country, we'd have to go to the tropics more like than not.  

Though I suppose we could always try to Colonize Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, to have any power we'd have to apply for citizenship.  I know I'm not inclined to become a Canadian.  My paternal anscestors  came from Quebec, but still. . .

The Upper peninsula of Michigan would be another idea. It has the same climate, it's in the US, and it's sparsely populated.

Hmm.
I'd feel weird bout living in the Midwest but that may be just because I'm a Yankee.

Alaska?
From what I've read Alaska and Silicon Valley are pretty Aspie already.

Or Wyoming.

Smallest state in the Union, lot of land.

Of course, the UP, get enough people and we may be able to apply for statehood.

Talked to a number of Michiganians who would be happy to see it out of their state.

Of course, if we get that many Aspies into Michigan, it'd be interesting to seewhat happens to a classical "swing state."

From what I understand, the only consistant thing about Aspie politics is that we tend to be extreme.

Why would a colony have to its own country?  It does not even have to be an island:  its could have other barriers such as distance from other settlements, walls, or economic or membership.  There barriers could be for protection or isolation, which either view one has.  

The main problem is how to make money.  No doubt any country would allow people just to sit around on disability pensions.   People would have to have jobs.  Who would decide who does what and who would have contact with the outside world.



Read about Hutterites:

http://www.hutterites.org/

They have large communal estates that have either agricultural or manufacturing.  Families live in their own homes:  houses or apartments.  They cook and eat communally.  Everyone has a job, even the women.  They are run by a committee of elected elders.  Some issues members will vote on.  A few "managers" deal with the outside world.  Interesting.

I think that a neurodiverse colony should have as little regulation as possible (e.g. murder and theft laws, noise control laws and other such issues dealing with bright light, perhaps some minor building regulations and as few laws regulation the people as possible.

One of the advantages of putting a colony in a developing country is that we could establish complex manufacture and perhaps some cottage industries and our products would be viable in both the country of residence and developing countries if we can export.

Trying to create a central planning system for any colony that we would have would not work.  Well, not if we want any level of freedom and comfort.  I think communism has proven this pretty conclusively.  

I know that I have some business ideas I'd like to try as an adult.  If I'm successful, I could move it/them, if I don't have a chance to try I might in such a colony.  

The most that I'd recommend for central planning is an agency to determine what economic niches are unfilled, to give some ideas, and perhaps a loan advocacy organization.   Then just let the laws of economics work.  Surely you don't consider us less capable of ambitious enterprise than neurotypicals do you?

I think that the best idea in a colony would be for those with ideas for businesses to go first, and set up.  Those who are uninterested in founding their own businesses would follow.  And if we can manage some food source, we could have a colony largely self contained.  I really need to re-write out my precedents, since the idea can be demonstrated by illustration.

As for outside contact, I think that regulating it, even if anybody who wanted could likely obtain it through election would be frightening, authoritarian, and cultish.  No thank you.