The Alaska Project

The Alaska Project

By George Kotlik

            As of 2022, the United States faces several different and distinct scenarios that could potentially bring about a societal collapse or, at the very least, a radical departure from the existing North American political hegemony. These scenarios include but are not limited to a deadly pandemic (far deadlier than the coronavirus or COVID-19), dramatic climate changes, resource depletion, economic depression(s), a violent breakdown in race relations, civil war brought about by the widening wealth inequality gap, and so forth. This essay will not expand upon, explore, or debate each potential scenario that could bring about a radical change to or an end of society as we know it. There is not sufficient space in this paper to accomplish a project of that scope and nature. Indeed, a study like that could produce several tomes, none of which have any serious bearing on the propositions advanced in this paper. By the same token, this paper offers a uniform response to a societal breakdown, covering each scenario, while not perfectly, to an appropriate extent. Minor modification(s) of project member response(s) to each crisis can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps that/those end(s) can be accomplished in other reports. Most importantly, this paper seeks to offer an alternative means of survival in the wake of a North American societal collapse.[1]

            In sum, this paper proposes to settle the remote Alaskan backcountry. This work concerns topics covering the logistics of that region’s settlement and the political philosophical underpinnings that call for such an action. As such, this paper begins with a discussion of the settlement site followed by coverage of the settlement itself, including discussions on the political, military, and economic considerations of the settlement’s founding, in addition to other particularities not mentioned here, unique to the settlement in question. Finally, this essay will conclude with a discussion of this plan’s shortcomings in addition to providing explanations wherever possible to address any concerns, objections, or criticisms to the proposed plan.

            This essay was inspired, in large part, by the work of Thomas More. It is important to note that More’s Utopia was not the first, and it is certainly not the last, work to touch upon utopia.[2] Socrates, Christine de Pizan, Sir Francis Bacon, Tommaso Campanella, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Pieter Brueghel put forth their own concepts of utopia as they saw it, respectively.[3] All at once, this work offers the author’s own assertion of what a utopian society looks like. Consequently, my claims are not intended to serve as fact. No, rather, they offer readers a springboard for future thought into the realm of political philosophy.

            This paper’s significance stems from the current domestic and international political, economic, environmental, and military climate.[4] Alaska offers residents numerous key advantages, benefitting those seeking to escape from societal problems or potential problems. First, Alaska is remote, far away from the United States capital, or any other major metropolitan centers – likely the targets of foreign attack and/or the sites of serious civil unrest. In fact, according to the World Population Review, as of 2020, the largest city in Alaska is Anchorage, boasting 282,000 residents. It is the seventy-fourth largest city, population-wise, in the United States.[5] The next biggest population center in Alaska is Juneau, boasting 31,000 residents. After that, population density declines dramatically. Fairbanks, 29,000 people; Badger, 18,000; Knik-Fairview, 17,000; College, 12,000; Wasilla, 11,000; Tanaina, 10,000; Lakes, 10,000; and Kalifornsky, 8,000.[6] Arguably, in the event of a nuclear war, Anchorage would be a likely target. Similarly, any foreign invasion would likely occupy some of the larger towns spared from the initial attack. However, invaders could encounter difficulty in possessing the countryside, especially in the backcountry.

Alaska’s harsh environment could prove to be a serious asset and refuge to those familiar with the landscape. This point speaks directly to the concept of Alaska as a frontier. Indeed, breaking away from many assertions claiming that Alaska is the last frontier, Walter R. Borneman calls Alaska the “next frontier.”[7] Whatever word choice is used to describe that region, Alaska is still, even in this modern age, a frontier. Frederick Jackson Turner said that the frontier is a “meeting point between savagery and civilization.”[8] According to Turner, some of the characteristics of existing in unsettled regions could, depending on the type of frontier and society existing therein, include a diminished influence from civilization, diminished dependence on civilization, operation as a military training school by “keeping alive the power of resistance to aggression,” the loss of sectionalism, offering pioneers the opportunity to break with old customs and to break away from civilization and all of its restraints, ideas, and lessons, and, to the approval of some, the promotion of democratic principles.[9] Taken together, the aforementioned benefits of frontier living point to the importance of settling the Alaskan backcountry during a societal collapse. That region offers a retreat from civilization and provides residents the ability to live on their own terms (to an extent).[10]

Environmentally, Alaska has lots to offer potential settlers. It has an abundance of game, fish, lumber, and good soil. It also has plenty of rivers, streams, and lakes – water sources that can be used for survival and transportation. Today, Alaska is cold. In the future, the extent to which that is true will be put to the test. Alaska is ideal for climate change considerations in two significant points. First, global warming will warm Alaska. As of 2022, Alaska is too cold and some slight warming would be good for new settlers, particularly those from warmer climates. Secondly, should sea levels rise in response to melting glaciers, most of Alaska will remain unsubmerged. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), if all of earth’s glaciers melted, water levels would rise approximately 70 meters or 230 feet.[11] All things considered, such a worse-case-scenario leaves much land in Alaska’s interior well above sea level, especially considering the fact that between Alaska’s highest and lowest altitudes, the state’s mean elevation is approximately 1,900 feet above sea level.[12]

A point made earlier touched upon isolationism. According to George Washington’s farewell address, Washington illuminates the importance of a body politics’ reluctance from engaging in foreign entanglements. “The great rule of conduct… in regard to foreign Nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible… steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.”[13] Washington goes on to speak in favor of neutrality that is both observed and respected by foreign governments. Such a neutrality would prevent belligerent nations from provoking the body politic and allow the state in question to “choose peace or War, as… interest… shall counsel.”[14] The remoteness of this proposed project speaks directly to the isolationism that would undoubtedly spring up in the face of limited settlement contact with the outside world. This point must be taken into consideration and simultaneously both fostered and guarded against to certain degrees. Indeed, isolationism, considering all its varying forms, must be practiced, ensuring successful distancing from foreign entanglements and the resulting mess derived therein from too much entanglement with outside elements. On the other side of the coin, too much isolationism could potentially bring about the settlement’s collapse. Surely, intelligence networks must be out in the field and regularly maintained to keep the colony abreast of any and all news in both the immediate locality and, to a certain extent, the rest of the world. Taken together, Alaska offers prime benefits to residents. Such considerations are more fully developed below.

The Settlement Site

            I propose settling areas of inland Alaska far removed from the coast. I refuse to name a specific location at this time, especially considering the fact that lands that are available today may not be available tomorrow. Ideally, the settlement needs to be remote. It should take several days to reach the settlement by vehicle. In order for the settlement to survive, it must comprise a community of like-minded people. One guy hacking his way through the wilderness will just not do. The likelihood of continued survival depends on the efforts of many and not a few, hence the need to bring along a community. The manner in which such a settlement can be acquired varies. It could be funded by a wealthy beneficiary. Funds could come from the settlers themselves, donated to the settlement’s leader for the benefit of the community. At the very least, this group’s initial goal would be to secure a sizeable township lot capable of accommodating several hundred people. Indeed, such an outcome refuses the potential to grow, but more land can be acquired/annexed once produce is gathered, packaged, and sold from raw materials on existing land acquisitions. Or it could just be annexed and occupied, by force, if necessary, if local land grants fail to hold any meaning.

The Settlement Proper

            This section deals with the settlement proper including, but not limited to, the political, military, and economic make-up of that body politic. The settlement will have its own flag, designed by the settlement’s founder. A wall will surround the town. In the settlement’s early stages, a wooden palisade wall will provide sufficient protection to residents. Over time, however, this temporary defense must be replaced by a more permanent wall made entirely out of thick stone. There must be sufficient structures to accommodate businesses, government buildings, and dwelling homes. The colony must, if it is to survive, control its population so that it does not reach unmanageable levels. This means that outsiders must not be allowed entry into the community. Citizens will be given passports that will allow them access to the settlement. Anyone caught without their passport will first be asked to leave. Subsequent attempts at entry may result in the neutralization and/or termination of the entry issue. The colony must be able to house all citizens within its walls. The maximum population should not exceed 1,500 people at any one time. Any more people may make effective administration of such a population, brought under strict control, difficult to accomplish and/or maintain.

            The colony would run as an aristocracy. Citizens will be treated under the stewardship model of public administration, meaning they are on a need-to-know basis. Essentially, the colony’s administration will know what is best for its subjects and will act in their best interests without their prior consultation. In exchange for salvation and protection from the harsh outside world, citizens will be required to demonstrate their loyalty to the colony’s leadership.[15] The town’s chief executive officer/mayor/administrator must have experience leading soldiers in a military capacity. Former military officer experience here would serve a candidate well for that aspect of the role. There would still exist an executive, judicial, and legislative branch within the colony, the latter only composing an upper-house or board of directors. Prospective settlers must include, but are not limited to bankers, farmers, soldiers, teachers, archivists, police officers, nurses, doctors, etcetera. By and large, the colony must be able to function as an independent entity without any outside interference and/or assistance.

            Militarily, all able-bodied men between the ages of eighteen and fifty-five must enlist in the militia and train weekly on the town green. Training regimens are subject to change depending on need. If outside threats present themselves, training will be more frequent, and can be as frequent as required. In addition to militiamen, a permanent force of full-time professional soldiers should operate as a standing army at all times. The professional soldiers would mostly serve in a ranging capacity, patrolling surrounding areas, maintaining effective information networks with the outside world, eliminating external threats to the settlement, and serve as law enforcers whenever necessary. Rangers will also be instructed to keep the colony a secret from the outside world. The settlement’s exact whereabouts should not be known to any outsider. It will be the ranger’s task to maintain this secrecy and turn away all trespassers that wander or travel too-near the settlement. At length, rangers will keep the colony appraised of the outside world, remaining on-guard against potential threats that arise/emerge. In addition to rangers and militiamen, spies will be employed and dispersed throughout the land. They will be dispatched to far distances and will be required to report their findings to the colony. In this way, the colony will implement an isolationist strategy while also remaining up to date with current events/affairs.

            Economically, the colony will raise its own crops and livestock. Complete and utter self-sufficiency is the rule. Every season, farmers, and anyone who produces something of value, must give a portion of their product to the colony founder so that he/she may be able to manage the colonies affairs unhindered by the demands of daily labor. Strategically speaking, isolationism must be the prevailing practice. However, in case an imperial power claims authority across the land, it would be in the colonies’ best interest to ally themselves with the prevailing power, so long as such a power is just.[16] Fitting to the nature of this paper, an exploration of this topic, though, deserves more consideration and thought than space would permit here. It is safe to say that the colony should be prepared to defend itself and fight to the last man, woman, and child if necessary and if pushed to such extremes, especially at the hands of an unjust imperial authority. If, however, the empire in question offers economic and military benefits, it would be in the colony’s best interest to annex itself and/or ally itself accordingly.

Final Considerations

            This paper has thus far covered a lot of ground related to the proposed settlement administration, defense, and management. In no way does this essay claim a comprehensive account/examination of each and every particularity related to public administration and the management of a colony in a post-apocalyptic scenario. Certainly, there is much left to be said in the fields of criminal justice, public policy, security studies, etcetera. Some more points that could surface in discussions on this matter include: a compromised settlement location; an alliance with an imperial order could drag the colony out of its isolationism and into unnecessary conflicts thereby making enemies the colony would otherwise not have; crop failure or a bad harvest could lead to suffering which could further lead to internal unrest and, if not managed properly, could bring about the colony’s end; the colony would be forced to serve as a bastion of support for the emergence of the second United States in this corner of the world. If this is the case, the colony would be required to abandon its isolationism to serve diplomatic, political, economic, and/or military needs that would undoubtedly arise in an attempt to build-up/reclaim former United States imperial glory.[17]

Bibliography

Andrews, Charles M., ed. Famous Utopias: Being the Complete Text of Rousseau’s Social Contract, More’s Utopia, Bacon’s New Atlantis & Campanella’s City of the Sun. New York: Tudor Publishing Co.

Bloom, Allan. The Republic of Plato: Translated and With An Interpretive Essay by Alan Bloom: With a New Introduction by Adam Kirsch. New York: Basic Books, 2016.

Borneman, Walter R. Alaska: Saga of a Bold Land. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2003.

Flexner, James Thomas. Mohawk Baronet: A Biography of Sir William Johnson. Syracuse University Press, 1989.

More, Thomas. Utopia: Unabridged. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1997.

Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920.

Alaska Geography. https://www.netstate.com/states/geography/ak_geography.htm#:~:text=The%20lowest%20point%20in%20Alaska,Sea%2C%20and%20the%20Arctic%20Ocean.&text=Between%20the%20highest%20point%20and,1%2C900%20feet%20above%20sea%20level.

“Farewell Address, 19 September 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0440-0002. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 703–722.]

United States Geological Survey. How would sea level change if all glaciers melted? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20some%20uncertainty,coastal%20city%20on%20the%20planet.

World Population Review. 10 Largest Cities in Alaska. https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cities/alaska.

World Population Review. The 200 Largest Cities in the United States by Population 2021. https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities.