P=problem
S=proposed solution
Based on my study of how nature evolves higher levels of organization, (all the way from organic molecules (not just DNA) to networks of organic molecules, cells, organs, organisms, families, villages, cities, companies, economies, nation/states, ecosystems, all the way to a whole planet earth), and my experience assisting, visiting and starting intentional communities, I propose that we have the following problems and the following possible solutions. I have in several previous posts discussed problems of intentional communities from the perspective of what we can learn from conservative intentional communities I , and II, systems theory, mundane issues that arise in communities, and tragedies. This is yet another attempt to tackle problems from a practical yet radical perspective.
Do you agree that these problems are fundamental (for example some people think systemic racism is fundamental, but I think that is false) ? Do you have other proposed solutions? I'd love to hear from you.
1. P: We are yearning for an intermediate between family and nation/state
S: community composed of pods/families, where the pods are economically and culturally inter-dependent, because of the structure and agreements about what we are and are not doing, what we call Community Supported Community (CSC)* in analogy and extension of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). In contradistinction to capitalist and communist economics (where there is no intermediate of value between individuals and the global market or the state), or distributist economics (where there is no intermediate between the family and the global market or state), we value the nesting of individuals within families (or pods), and families within villages (or tribes).
2. P: Feedback loops are too big for learning to occur (e.g. global warming, peak oil, government and corporate corruption, (global) market failure to provide for needs, usury (usually exploitation of strangers through rent).
S: Localization. All basic needs are produced locally, and most local production is for local use. For this we need hundreds of people to take advantage of diversity of talents, and efficiency of specialization. Also, externalization to nature (as in atmosphere and rivers or oceans), future generations and people far away is impossible with a local economy. If we screw up we get immediate feedback and have to make corrections. Both communism and capitalism could benefit from smaller scales (the family is already communistic, and the village can benefit from a small market economy)
3. P: a. Too much communalism on a scale larger than about 10 people leads to freeloading (it's a good breeding ground for that kind of behavior) and competition (diverse needs, finite resources), with resulting conflict, drama, and only the most assertive or strong people getting their needs met. Conflict resolution is an oft-touted solution, but how much time do people want to spend on conflict resolution vs just enjoying life? Of course conflict resolution is part of the solution once conflict arises, but we propose there are ways of reducing the potential for conflict (see below), similar to germline segregation in biology.
b. Too much family in the context of a global economy (e.g. homesteads that barely interact with each other) leads to cultural anomie. Also, we have serious ecological and economic problems that can't be addressed in the context of families in a global economy.
S: Separate pods of people who resonate with and deeply love each other and can share a domestic space. In such an environment (usually a sexually and genetically related family, but it doesn't have to be), competition is reduced, there is less diversity of needs, and it can be more simply negotiated than if there were more people. But unlike homesteads that are barely interacting with each other because they can interact with the global economy for their cultural and economic needs, we agree to a radical economic and cultural interdependence (CSC), where people need and can rely on each other for their diverse economic and cultural needs. There is less energy needed to devote to conflict resolution and meetings, and more energy for enjoying nature, work, contemplation, personal passions and relationships. For a functioning economy hundreds of people are necessary, whereas for a functioning family no more than about 10 people are needed or possible. We propose to encourage both levels of organization and nest the family within the community in a synergistic way. In disagreement with Confucius, who thought that the success of the nation depends on the success of the village, which depends on the success of the family all the way down to the health of the individual, I think that the success of each level of organization depends on the levels both above and below it, not just below it. Also, I disagree that everything depends on only individuals being healthy (the libertarian view), or individuals having a good relationship with a God or Spirit or some other foundational (lowest) or ultimate (highest) entity (the mystical view). If we can at least get the 3 lowest levels (starting with individuals, of course there are lower levels) healthy, and make the dependence on levels beyond the village mostly superfluous, we can create something good.
5. P: We don't need each other, given our dependence on the impersonal global economy
S: We agree to produce for each other and use each others goods and services (CSC, which includes cultural services). We also unite around sacred values**, have respect for competent authority in specific areas, and have good boundaries around community and agreemets, since these are the "secrets" of conservative communities that make them last longer and have smaller turnover than liberal communities.
6. P: We are destroying nature because we are not connected to her and our dependency is not apparent
S: By getting our economic, cultural and spiritual needs met from the land around us, we are forced to deeply care for nature. It becomes concrete as opposed to the abstract way most people experience nature. At best most people are currently tourists/hikers/backpackers in nature. We propose to trade the comfort, convenience and removal from nature of the global economy for more immediate connection between us and nature
7. P: 85% of people hate their work, many are unemployed
S: We trade off mechanization for craft production and practices (such as permaculture) that encourage individual autonomy and creativity and an appreciation by pod and community members for the fruits of one's labor.
8. P: overpopulation--meaning too much competition for resources (not necessarily overcrowding)
S: we agree to no more than 1 kid per individual, though people can trade for the privilege of having more kids (like I'll give up my potential offspring so you can have an extra, maybe you can give me something in exchange). We can be lenient if accidents happen and people get pregnant unintentionally, but if it happens too often there has to be consequences. Humans should be able to control their population, unlike most other animals, because of the gift of foresight and choice.
9. P: Unhealthy or un-environmental food (even when it's organic)
S: We produce our own food, each pod has their own food production, though pods also specialize in food production (and other production).
10. P: Injustice (the haves exploiting the have nots)
S: There will be less injustice because pods will have joint ownership of the land and just like families they will have love as an ointment to help reduce conflict due to diverse talents and needs. There could be differences between pods, but these will be based on pod focus and preference, not on one pod exploiting another. The community will have monitors (one of the Ostrom principles) to make sure this does not happen, and a coalition of people who can prevent any one pod from imposing its will on other pods. Also, we will try to encourage a spirituality based on communion rather than resource acquisition and control**.
11. P: No say in decisions regarding health, housing, and our immediate environment
S: Pod governance, nested within community governance, nested within local county/town governance, ... Most really important decisions happen within community and pod, not higher levels, as it is now. Also, pods can send representatives if they want to community decision-making meetings.
12. P: Loneliness
S: Pods that are more stable than families in the mainstream, because the community and nature encourage their stability through a mutual interdependence.
13. P: Xenophobia
S: We need to inculcate a deep ecology or deep humanism view where people care about others and the earth outside of the village. We at some point might need to help create higher level entities to prevent any one community from getting too aggressive. This is an exception to localization. We need globalization of communication and information to continue to some extent, not to dominate our economic and cultural life.
14. P: Woundedness. Our culture has left many people not getting basic emotional needs met (due to industrial revolution destroying villages, good work and reducing effectiveness of family) resulting in scapegoating (shadow projection onto others), addictions, and cognitive deterioration.
S: As a short-term transition, encouraging people to do inner work (meditation, contemplation, exercise, nature therapy, and therapist-assisted therapies of various modalities) and inter-personal work (NVC, Nakaima, Zegg Forum). Long-term, restoring the family and keeping it sustainable in the context of a village, and restoring good work.
15. P: Insufficient attention by liberal intentional communities to the 6 values that help conservative communities last longer and have smaller turnover (but not so far go viral or provide a radical and resonant alternative to the mainstream). Also insufficient attention to the problems listed above, especially the distinction between family/pod and community, and the dependence on the global economy, instead of the among community families/pods. Eco-villages have the most potential to remedy these problems.
S: First, like in addiction-recovery programs, admitting that there is a problem, and then implementing the 6 values and the solutions above.
16. P: Insufficient attention by the mainstream (even the fringes of the mainstream) to the problems of western civilization (some are listed above) since the industrial revolution.
S: As the inevitable decline of western civilization continues, more and more people will be looking for alternatives. It would be nice for these to be created earlier than later, when resources are less available and cognitive decline increases.
17. P: People are afraid of the negative aspects of cults (such as loss of individuality, suicides, psychological boundary violations by leaders) to consider that the reason cults are successful so often is because they meet real human needs that are not met in the mainstream civilization, such as a sense of belonging and safety, communion with other people in the cult, and a shared reality around which to create meaning.
S: Provide a sense of belonging to the family/pod and the community by encouraging some individuals to pursue a talent in designing activities which encourage communion (singing, dancing, ritual, plays, storytelling, deep discussions, group therapy, games, hot tubs, saunas, sweat lodges, etc), as well as encouraging economic interdependence through CSC. Also provide training on the negative aspects of cults in order to avoid those. Also Issac Bonnewits' ABCDEF.
*CSC Agreements (between pods, or between individuals? TBD):
1) Providing a good or service that at least 90% of the people in the community agree is needed. Individuals can thus focus on developing skill, responsibility and expertise in an area that resonates with their soul, akin to majoring in a field of study at a university. For more resiliency of the CSC, individuals can also have “minors” in areas that are not their primary focus, but hopefully someone else’s focus; Individuals can thus focus on developing skill, responsibility and expertise in an area that resonates with their soul.
2) Providing a 'market' for someone who's providing a good or service in the community, even if it's of lower quality or higher 'price' in some way, with mechanisms for improvement available, as discussed below;
3) The strategic closing of production loops, so that inputs and outputs of each producer are provided by and to other producers (including non human ones) in the village, or eventually in other similar villages; and
4) Communal practices and rituals that allow us to express grief and joy and encourage belonging and interdependence. Some people could even major in organizing or facilitating these.
5) Ostrom Principles for monitoring people (within a pod) and pods (within the community) who get too aggressive against other people or pods, and the power to give proportional punishment or withholding of benefits from such people or pods, as well as clearly defined boundaries for pods and the community and any communally owned land.
A longer rationale for CSC:
We think the fundamental flaw in all mainstream economic and political systems is their large size/scale (the benefits of large scale are outweighed by the costs), whereas the fundamental flaw in all intentional communities is their over-dependence on the mainstream systems, and their neglect of the problems of too much sharing or equality (tragedy of the commons, freeloading, brain/talent drain). Intentional communities either have too much sharing/communalism or too much “homesteadization” whereby families have their own homesteads and jobs in the mainstreasm economy, with very little economic and cultural interaction with other homesteads. We proactively address these flaws in both the mainstream and intentional communities, from a holistic approach, integrating economics, psychology, governance and environmentalism. We propose a much smaller economic and cultural scale of a few hundred people, and an even smaller domestic scale of highly interdependent homesteads of between 2-10 people (aka "pods"). This has the advantage of much individual freedom at work, more love in the domestic sphere because it only involves highly resonant people, primary accountability to the group, personal care for and from other members of the domestic sphere, a radical dependence on the local nature and the local community for basic needs, and care about the outside world. The benefits and costs of these will all be discussed below. In presenting these, it's sometimes hard to not mix the economic, psychological, government, and environmental parts. Either the benefits or costs can be more neatly subdivided, but not both (or maybe this can be done by someone?) :
Economic rationale
1. Individual freedom with work encourages initiative and innovation, which are good for individual productivity and group adaptability/fitness. However, we need to discourage big egos that can create jealousy and resentment. Also, especially in pioneering stages, work parties may be more efficient.
2. Accountability to the group (by CSC and Ostrom agreements and enforcement mechanisms) discourages free loading, one of the main problems of groups where there is much sharing. However, we need to discourage totalitarianism and give people domains of time and space where they can explore their creativity or relationship with other beings without being stifled by the group.
3. Personal care for and from others creates a safety net, an insurance against accidents to individuals. Contrast this with large impersonal institutions which usually fail to provide good personal care. I am not sure yet whether we also need to implement "high cost signaling" mechanisms which are common in both mainstream and many ICs (for example, you can't take more than a small amount of assets out if you leave) to create more loyalty and discourage people from leaving too easily.
4. A radical dependence on local nature (enforced through stories, rituals, and striving for almost no imports or exports), combined with foresight and group monitoring, reduces the occurrence of the tragedy(overexploitation) of the commons. It is easier to care about local nature than nature far away, the dependencies are more obvious. Also it is easier to monitor people locally, harder to hide nasty practices. Last, it encourages people to see themselves as part of nature, which besides the psychological benefits (to be discussed below) keeps most of their contributions inside the community. The costs are further discussed in #5 of the psychological rationale section.
5. Care about the outside world is insurance against accidents or threats to the whole community. Neighbors or other communities can help if bad luck befalls the community. The costs are dilution of the energy that goes into the community.
Psychological Rationale
1,2. Individual freedom and a craft-mentality (as opposed to a machine-operator mentality) with work encourages states of flow (especially when combined with group accountability), which contributes to happiness.
2. Economic accountability to to the group (based on CSC agreements) encourages a sense of belonging, which contributes to happiness (though it could also contribute to stress if one falls short of one's commitments). The accountability to the group can also be encouraged though giving credit for designing and participating in ritual, storytelling, art, teaching/learning workshops, group dance, music making (and listening to others in the group as opposed to electronic music), well-being meetings (probably at the pod/family level), as well as encouraging adults to take care of other people's children. All these activities provide "community glue", which contributes to trust and a sense of belonging and reduces the need of people to leave (brain/talent drain)
3. Personal care to and from others is one of the essential ingredients of good relationships, which also contribute to happiness. Also, it encourages trust and generosity, which discourage hoarding and excessive inequality, which contribute to social unrest, jealousy and violence. Personal care also makes it easier to give feedback, so people can improve their skills, both at work, psychologically and socially.
4. A radical dependence on local resources encourages a radical dependence on one's community members since one can't do everything, and one knows who provided ones goods and services, as well as whom one is producing these for. Beyond resources, a radical dependence on nature gives one a sense of belonging as part of nature (a factor in happiness).
5. Care about the outside world through encouraging of a humanist and deep ecological worldview, prevents the negative side of tribalism from creating the conditions for war with the outside world and encourages active peace with the outside world. It can be encouraged by a limited flow of information and even more of goods and services, since CSC intentionally limits flow of goods and services to and from the outside world, with the exception of similar communities (a tradeoff since this can also help care for the outside world). The limiting of resource exchange with the outside world needs to happen gradually as to avoid burnout. In addition, careful screening of prospective members based on both well-designed surveys and long trial periods will be implemented so as to avoid "negative selection" for freeloaders who are attracted to the benefits offered by the village, but may not be willing to pay costs, such as loyalty and accountability to the group, less availability of consumer goods than can be gotten in the global market, less convenience at times with less labor-saving devices, respect for agreements and enforcers of them (such as peacemakers and productivity monitors, this is not hard for more conservative people, but might be hard for more liberal ones).
Governance rationale
1,2,3,4. The first 4 practices provide community glue, and reduce the interpersonal conflict that arises when people do not like, trust or need each other (yet are forced by an economic system or proximity to interact with each other) thus reducing the need for large scale group governance (in particular, hierarchies and burocracies). Smaller governance groups such as families and pods are encouraged and make governance less complex and more manageable. Ostrom principles will be implemented to avoid the over-exploitation of common resources (by making public goods also have proportional private costs), monitor both productivity (of individuals and pods) and well-being of individuals (which in a community can also be partially looked at as common resources), as well as encourage both participatory governance(give people a real voice in things that affect them and others they care about) and nested governance (leave them alone or allow them to choose a pod-representative/peacemaker with things that they or others do that don't much affect others outside the family/pod, which has its own governance). It is possible that some people (e.g. peacemakers and productivity monitors) will have managerial roles, but not of everything, just specific areas, thus reducing the dangers of concentrated power. It is hoped that all the activities (besides purely economic) that encourage community glue, will also reduce the need for complex legal agreements, of which compliance is mostly based on fear of punishment.
5. Bigger governing bodies will need to be built (and initially existing ones tolerated or reformed from the outside world). This has already been covered in #5 for psychological rationale section.
Environmental rationale
4. A radical dependence on local nature encourages a deep ecological worldview, which sees one's community members, both human and other species as being intricately interdependent. With such a worldview, it is more difficult to want to hurt other people or beings (though sometimes it may be necessary). This radical dependence on local nature will be encouraged by relearning hunter-gatherer skills and pre-industrial skills (from known experts and experimentation), as well as encouraging innovation with permaculture ideas and appropriate technology.
5. A more global environmental consciousness, will also be encouraged though being more abstract, is harder to encourage. It can be done through travel and education (though we may not have much resources for long-distance travel, the young especially might need to do it). Also, as has been mentioned when the humanist worldview is not present, people can just move on and keep degrading nature, or steal from more peaceful tribes if they don't take care of the nature around them.
**Example of sacred values: individuals have a sacred core merely by existing, and they are valued for this core primarily, before their value as useful to anyone else. The purpose of life is to commune more than to control and in order to commune, we value these 4 relationships between individuals and :
1) their community; 2) their sacred creative source; 3) their ecosystem; and 4) their surrounding society
