Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 17:43 UTC

Re: Initial Housing for Asgardians  

It had been thought to have the purchase of a territory of its own to do so, but in view of not being an official idea of ​​the site, the topic has not been discussed in this forum, however, one should consider buying a territory that could serve to form A country and / or temporary city for the development of the space nation

Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 22:41 UTC

I think we should focus more on getting satellites into space before worrying about housing. NASA does one mission at a time, and we should do the same.

In the long term, I expect that some people would be stationed on the moon and/or in space stations in near Earth orbit at some point in the future. However, it's undeniable that most Asgardians will be stuck on Earth for the foreseeable future.

Personally, I'm willing to forego the opportunity to go to space. From the video I saw, I'm actually a little bit older than the average Asgardian. I also have a medical problem that could make me a liability in space exploration. It will most likely be the best available people who go to space first. By the time everyone gets to go there, it might not be feasible for me. I would be happy just to have a human presence in space.

Feb 23, 17 / Pis 26, 01 13:24 UTC

Temporary domiciles are needed for asgardians on Earth not only as a right for them to be housed as asgardian citizens as like as developed countries but also to collaborate together to realize the goal of Asgardia in space. This goal needs a hard work, collaboration and insistance to be realized. The domiciles specified for housing the asgardian should be deluxe, not similar to refugee camps even in developed countries, to upgrade the motivation and teamwork for the asgardians to work hard. The luxury should not be a target for asgardians as long as they are sill staying on Earth but the availability of needs is required for them so that nothing gets to their mind but to realize the goal of Asgardia in space. The realization of Asgardia in space requires to achieve big advances in science, technology and engineering to be able to launch the first expedition to the space.

Feb 23, 17 / Pis 26, 01 14:16 UTC

Temporary domiciles are needed for asgardians on Earth not only as a right for them to be housed as asgardian citizens as like as developed countries but also to collaborate together to realize the goal of Asgardia in space.

Ok, just hold on a second here.

Rights are things you cannot be denied. Housing is NOT a right. Housing is a PRIVILEGE. Housing has responsibilities that are required of those who live there, like maintenance and proper neighborly behavior. If you fail to meet your responsibilities you should not have the PRIVILEGE of Housing.

Just one of my pet peeves when people call things which are privileges as rights, regardless of how basic those privileges are. There is a big fundamental difference between the two. Rights should never be possible to take away without a VERY good reason. Privileges are things you have to meet your responsibilities to maintain, or they will be taken from you.


Mar 19, 17 / Ari 22, 01 20:44 UTC

Luxurious housing is something that will likely not be seen on a space station, not from outward appearances anyway. There simply wil not be enough space for huge luxury houses. In fact, it is more likely that the housing situation would more closely resemble the quarters on the starship enterprise.


I disagree with you when you say housing is a privilege and not a right, everyone has a right to have a roof over their heads. Sure, keeping that roof comes with responsibilities but, the responsibilities do not come first. They can't come first, especially if they require one to already be living there before they have any validity! Also, the idea of proper neighborly behavior is subjective and can not clearly be defined. So, who's opinion of what is proper neighborly behavior could we possibly form that rule around? I mean, daily interaction with the neighbors could by some be seen as proper, while others may think that not having any interactions with the neighbors is fine as long as no trouble is being caused.

I myself am not what you would call a social butterfly and as a result would interact with my neighbors very rarely as I do now. To some that is seen as anti social behavior and could be considered as not very neighborly, however, I am not anti social, I have just never been much for socializing especially with folks I do not know. Then you have to consider the social climate, some times you run into trouble just by trying to be social. In all reality there is no thing as proper neighborly behavior. If people are not causing any trouble isn't that all that matters?

  Updated  on Mar 19, 17 / Ari 22, 01 20:47 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 13:19 UTC

"Proper Neighborly Behavior" is defined as:

  1. Not putting your stuff (i.e. trash, obnoxious sounds, or even possessions) in other people's spaces.
  2. Maintaining your own space, so as not to be an eyesore (sweeping, removal of trash, non-obnoxious decorations if desired).
  3. Simple acknowledgement of existence if you happen to see your neighbor (a 'Hi' is generally sufficient).

On board a space station, EVERYONE will have a roof over their heads, otherwise they'd be sucking vacuum. The entire place would be climate controlled. Food and water will likely be dispensed. People could sleep with whatever animals are on board and still not be considered without a roof or climate control.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 17:34 UTC

That's cultural, as all social rules are. Neighborliness is not a property of physics.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 17:35 UTC

Unless you're talking purely about proximity...

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 17:45 UTC

That's cultural, as all social rules are. Neighborliness is not a property of physics.

Unless you're talking purely about proximity...

What are you two responding to, or talking about? I can't tell to whom you are responding, or just making general proclamations.

IF you were speaking to me, then 'neighbors' are those around you, wherever you happen to be. That is a physical state based on proximity, as EyeR says.

With regards to cultural, I have yet to find a culture on Earth in which any of the three rules I have identified do not apply. Given that is our starting point, and these rules are generally accepted as appropriate, I fail to see why their inclusion in Asgardia would be in question.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 18:04 UTC

A space nation does not need own properties to life at earth. People who are on earth, remain in their origin countries. What you do mean is a scenario where people only have the Asgardia citizenship, which is (if it would ever be a thing) decades away. Those would possibly have the chance to live in a connected village to the Asgardia Headquarters on Asgardia Territory of another country somewhere on earth.

I am sure that, in the future, we will at least have one building on earth, that belongs to Asgardia and is Asgardia Territory.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 18:46 UTC

I was responding to your post, Phicksur, because in my experience I have known many people who strongly disagree with those tenets, especially the no eyesores clause. I have seen many arguments over eyesores and one party always takes the position that it's none the neighbors damned business what's on the lawn. I've lived in both rural and urban areas and rural folks tend to consider eyesore one of them fancy cityfolk words to cause trouble. Urban dwellers in my experience avoid talking or acknowledging their neighbors as much as possible.

There are very few cultural universals, even among a species as inbred as ours.

  Last edited by:  Michael Hoselton (Asgardian)  on Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 18:46 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 18:52 UTC

have seen many arguments over eyesores and one party always takes the position that it's none the neighbors damned business what's on the lawn.

Except when there is no lawn, because you are living on a space station. There will be no lawns, and probably not much along the lines of a 'porch' either. The idea of 'private space' will be where one sleeps, and uses the facilities, and probably very little else (maybe a single room).

Areas outside of one's home is likely to be a public area, and thus held accountable to the rules of the public. Decorations there are subject to the whims of the people who live there, by consensus, or no decorations should occur.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 19:14 UTC

Yes, disagreements over what constitutes proper neighborly conduct tends to be very different in cramped quarters with no private outdoor spaces compared to disputes between landed residents.

Mar 26, 17 / Tau 01, 01 05:59 UTC


The problem with the whole proper behavior as a neighbor idea is, it is based on someone else's idea of what the proper behavior is. I do not acknowledge my neighbors as it is now and if I had a lawn, I would not much care about keeping it pretty for them. I actually find the idea that I should quite arrogant as well as totally stupid. What matters more, or should matter more, is not asthetics but, whether or not the neighbor causes any trouble that would endanger anyone besides themselves. Personally, I would purposely leave my lawn looking a mess because in all reality. It in no way should be of concern to anyone but me and the neighbors are not inconvenienced in any way.

I also would not acknowledge them, it's nothing personal but, I just find it a futile act. Not everyone follows that way of thought and as long as they are not causing me any problems then I do not care. Besides, in a climate where, folks are easily offended sometimes over the most ridiculous things. I find it much easier to avoid being sociable as much as possible

Apr 26, 17 / Gem 04, 01 09:46 UTC

The right of housing is a (social) human right. see art. 16/31 European Social Charta and art. 11 ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).