We’ve always dreamed of some kind of colonies. That’s why so many of us read science fiction. But the reality... Actually living in that sort of environment and trying to get a decent condo association going... Agree, any start up costs would just keep it going until they ran out.
Yup. At some point I realized the true reason we don’t have colonies on the Moon is: it’s boring. Oh sure the _idea_ of being there is exciting, the freedoms are enticing, the struggle to survive is compelling, etc ... but the few people who have actually been there weren’t all “aw gee whiz do I really have to leave?” but were more “alright that was interesting, can we go home now?” Mars might prove somewhat more interesting, relatively speaking, (being a more dynamic orb with geysers and a bit of wind and some water to struggle for) but that too may prove the greatest challenge: once you settle in, it’s likely downright boring.
So I wonder the same about these artificial island/cities: when you’re that far out to sea, working that hard just to literally stay afloat, will it really be interesting & productive enough to elicit the effort needed to remain? I’d have to revisit studies about Oriental “boat towns” (where some allegedly never set foot on land), tales of Kowloon Walled City (ultra-dense self-contained living), Antarctic stations, and other enduring non-sequitur habitats.
Occurs to me too:
The pictures shown are _pretty_. Optimal conditions, sort of a Disney-at-Sea.
I want realistic depictions of _normal_, and _failure_mode_, living. When money gets tight, what’s the realistic prioritizations and what’s the natural messy state? Economic effects of diminishing returns must be considered; keeping things pristine looks good, but costs a lot over keeping things tolerably mundane. Self-sustaining self-governed high-density living usually looks like a $#!^hole (see Kowloon Walled City).