I think what pax is saying is totally in line with what I'm saying. Starting a new cooperative/communal entity every year for the next 20 seems like a reasonably ambitious goal to set FOR MYSELF. Of course I want each one to be so benefical and satisfying that others want to do the same, and working on that will be part of the work of developing specific groups and the network as a whole.

So, my question to pax as our memetics expert is, how do we that? How do we "design communities so compelling..."? What are the characteristics that we need to consider?

1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

Show Last Reply

In recent offline discussions Thomas expressed his desire to build/form communal/cooperative living groups as a way to lower consumption without lowering quality of life - this being crucial to enticing a significant number of folx in the western world to embrace a different lifestyle.

For me, reducing consumption and waste has always been a main reason for living communal. How can we reallistically expect to make the world a better place if we don't reduce consumption and waste? And how can we do it without a drastic reduction in quality of life if we don't pool resources?

But in addition to maintaining a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, I think most american's, even those with progressive politics, also need a certain level of control over personal resources, esp. money. I'm fine with this to some extent, but not when it means that some members of a community feel economically secure while others don't. I think that dynamic fuels resentment and alienation, major toxins to the social health of a community. So where's the balance? What's the economic arrangement where people have the necessary sense of economic autonomy while at the same time no one feels like they're on their own.

I think what I'm talking about is the creation of a social wellfare network that exists outside the mainstream money economy as much as possible and where people can get their basic needs, as much as possible, without the necessity of participating in the mainstream money economy as a wage-earner. I think this can only work if people feel like they aren't restricted in improving their own lives (within certain ecological guidelines) and are not being dragged down by others who are not carrying their weight. Until this network hits monumental proportions I think there will be a basic level of contribution, of money and/or labor, required of all members.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

• Post reply

Perhaps, these people should be invited to this site. I don't have any of their e-mails. A donor situation could work but I think it would work best in the form of a loan to the group rather than an individual holding the mortgage.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

• Post reply

Show Last Reply

I notice that some contributors have been inclined towards adding content to pages, or creating new pages, and others towards making comments.

I want people to add content to pages and create new pages. What some started doing, which I just went back and completed, was signing content added to a page. I like this.

But is there some useful distinction between what should be added as content and what should be a comment? The rough trend I'm starting to see is that comments are more for tangental dialog or information (like the commetns on the home page about the purpose of this wiki compared to the ic.org wiki, this comment, as well as buckets comment giving detail about what the FEC is up to - though I think that could also have been page content).

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

• Post reply

I want this to grow in whatever direction has the most energy. If I don't like the direction it's going, I'll start something new. So go wild editing, inviting new people, etc.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

• Post reply

Show Last Reply