Simply put, diluting the donated money amongst multiple different projects would result in each potentially failing to accrue enough donations to be sustainable. This would also mean that competing projects launched by other companies / individuals employing a similar system of monetary aggregation would be detrimental to all projects involved.
Should it be feasible, excess funding will be used to expand research into other fields such as reducing the environmental impact of the construction industry or reducing water usage by agricultural industries to prevent world water scarcity.
Geopolitical stability changes frequently whether it be due to the transition of head of state or through border friction / trade issues with other nations. Having the Project be positioned in any country inherently binds it to the ideals and alignment of said country. Defensive pacts such as NATO, political spheres like the African Union and the changing whims of the host country prevent equitable distribution of research due to political / economic friction are some examples.
This alignment bias would also pose a threat to the participation rate of unaligned nations, such as the European Union dissuading the Chinese population due to a general disagreement between the forms of governance employed by the respective groups.
Furthermore, participation in SOME world agreements under certain governing bodies poses a threat to neutrality. An example this would be the world bank which refuses to provide loans if the requesting nation does not reform / maintain a democracy. This undercuts the core tenant of global participation.
Thus it is a necessary to quell the suspicion of another, larger entity pulling the strings on the project. In response, and following the international rules of law, it seems the correct answer (or the answer that will pose the lowest threat internationally) is to have a self-governed micronation beholden to the United Nations and international community.
The simple ‘checks and balances’ to maintain compliance are simple:
Additionally, whilst operating in a neutral state the project can forego the anti-monopoly / antitrust laws present in other countries. Such implemented laws are correct for a county conducting laissez-faire capitalism to prevent a non-government entity from becoming too powerful. This convention however would harm a particular fail-safe for a stable dissolution built into the scheme (as discussed in FAQ 3).
The main benefit to this proposition is that it allows for a decisive dissolution should the need arise. The state, funded entirely by the project, which is under the control of the Project, would be of no use should the Project fail. As the government is just a tool to justify the land claim and enable the growth of the project within its territories, and in itself holds no ambition to expand borders nor force its will onto other nations / actors, it is merely a shell.
With that being said, land recognition is governed by the UN which explicitly requires a government structure to be considered. The binding also helps to hold state entities accountable for their actions where the Project and other NGOs would otherwise be overlooked. Simply put, this consideration is required for a nation to ‘play by the rules’ on the world stage.
The mere thought of flouting global conventions at the risk of jeopardizing the project is senseless.
From the outset a number of conventions and international memberships have already been nominated to comply with the global status quo. Participation in various organisations include:
The above list will be voluntarily participated in to help justify the formation of the state by reducing uncertainties between the proposed nation and the UN observers.
Firstly, they would be unable to claim the land designated as they are not an independent state and therefore would be forced to locate the facility on a host county’s land (negating total neutrality).
Secondly, the UN is an entity that regulates international conduct, it is not however designed to hold possessions. Having a governing body retain assets unrelated to the management of member nations would compromise their own unbiased position on the world stage.
Thirdly, should the UN retain the project it may potentially compromise participation in the Project due to an unrelated ‘faux pas’ towards a member nation. By unbinding this project from the UN, should any fallout from their rulings effect other nations the project could not be used as a ‘tit-for-tat’ politic scuffle resulting in non-compliance.
I would like this project to remain untouched by politicking and mismanagement, to retain its core values and to remain a timeless institution.
This is a matter partially answered in the question prior. I am not attempting this alone. I will request the assistance of various entities, most notably the UN or other governing authorities. Division of labour and relying on the expertise of others is necessary to achieve favourable outcomes.
There are thousands of city planners, engineers and talking heads more competent in their field of study, something which is an obvious observation. I however propose that no person would be able to match the efforts I have undertaken to address the physical challenges present in the project nor the overall scope of both maintaining the goal and ethics of the project.
Though this does not constitute a required skill set, being able to lend my thousands of hours of research to shorten / ease the development process of the project would provide an invaluable service.
The operating costs of the research, payment of staff and civil servants, maintenance of buildings, public services and amenities; the residual value will be then spent on the two main expenditures: Facility expansion and additional fields of research.
Facility expansion is a necessary consideration for the laboratory to accommodate technological advancements or the growth of various departments and staff. Having both the means and the finances to do so will prevent premature obsolescence of the project.
The latter expands the scope of addressing global issues. Resolving plastic pollution, water scarcity, crop failure, global ageing, et cetera, can all be addressed with adequate funding. Although climate change is our current problem there is always more looming in the near future; I wish to act on them here and now.
They may approach the Project with complaints and enter into arbitration in order to reach a favourable solution to the problem. Should that not provide the resolution that they seek an external probe into the matter is initiated by neutral entity such as Interpol.
Lastly, if the outcome is not acceptable by the country they retain the right to cease payments to the project.
Depending on the severity of the breach corresponding measures will be taken to address issues should they arise. On an individual scale failure to provide the agreed daily funds will be accompanied by a notice, repeated failure will result in cancellation of the personal contract with an exclusion order from the scheme for a set time.
Countries that breach contract through non-compliance, non-payment or impeding / compromising the project will risk being ejected from the scheme; In doing so they must understand that there is an exclusion period afterwards to prevent abuse of the system.
A near impossibility. The project is only focused on research and does not address housing, food, social support, religious and psychological counselling nor direct cultural support for those in need. These aspects will remain in the hands of more specialised charities and social support structures.
It should be stated that the project does not seek, nor is capable of providing peer-to-peer support as it does not have the staff or religious / governing authority to conduct the charity in such a manner.
The pinnacle of any design is efficiency, in terms of presenting the Project this means brevity. It is possible to present a hundred page document with every detail, such as my logic for designing the road infrastructure or what types of trees should be planted. I do actually have information like this based on hours of research but it holds no value to the donors.
This level of detail will only be of importance to those assisting in the development of the land. In time all minor information will be released to those who are interested but the important factors, such as time and cost, are already covered elsewhere.
Although partially covered in other questions, the most important factors are its scale, participation and purpose. There are countless charities, think tanks and non-governmental organisations all seeking similar results, of which I have no doubt they are slowly working to meet their targets.
The Dandelion Project is intended to continue in perpetuity as a cornerstone of humanity’s cooperation. Like the Red Cross, which itself has existed for over a century, we need a singular unified entity to progress science, which means we need to plan for the coming decades, not years or election cycles.
No matter which government is in charge of your nation, the project will continue.
No matter what war rages on in the world, the project will continue.
No matter how much the petroleum industry is subsidised and supported, the project will continue.
The project will continue until the world has an infinite source of clean, renewable, recyclable energy. This will take decades regardless of what a suited man will tell you.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.