[HN Gopher] 230 people living communally on 175 acre eco village...
___________________________________________________________________
230 people living communally on 175 acre eco village [video]
Author : jelliclesfarm
Score : 159 points
Date : 2021-10-24 08:44 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| haihaibye wrote:
| This seems really great, housing 230 people on land that cost
| $400k 25 years ago, but I suspect it would be illegal to do this
| in almost all of the Western world where people want to live.
|
| It's basically an exercise in rezoning. If you were allowed to
| build that many housing units originally then they would have
| been outbid by a developer.
| foxhop wrote:
| The buildings look like condos to me, everything is in the
| building code specs and it looks like they have systems the
| building code should adopt like positioning the building for
| maximum solar photon gain and winter solar heat gain.
| haihaibye wrote:
| I'm not talking about the internal community village rules,
| but the local government/council permits to construct dozens
| of houses on farmland.
|
| For instance where I live farmland is cheap until it has
| permission to build a house on it, then it's much more
| expensive. If you could buy it then get permission to build
| 50 houses on it, you would make many millions the instant
| after the rezoning.
|
| Thus, the rich with connections in local politics do this
| crowding out the communities like these guys. I suspect their
| secret sauce is local government connections and lobbying /
| legal expertise to rezone.
| nipponese wrote:
| At 37:00 she explicitly states the co-op has the authority
| through consensus to legally force someone off the commune (no
| mention of what happens to their shares, but I assume
| forfeiture).
|
| One has to wonder what the rest of the US would look like if we
| could kick someone out of their neighborhood and force them to
| sell or give up their home simply because we didn't like them.
| The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high.
| southerntofu wrote:
| > the co-op has the authority through consensus to legally
| force someone off the commune
|
| So first it's important to point out that in self-organized
| communities a ban is the most drastic measure that can be taken
| against someone. It's not exactly the option thrown in the air
| when there's any kind of neighborhood conflict.
|
| Then, it's a feature not a bug. It requires consensus: why on
| earth would you be allowed to live in a place where _nobody_
| wants to live with you?
|
| Also worth considering, what's the alternative? Calling the
| cops? Besides any question of autonomy in regards to the State,
| how would that help? What would cops do that the commune can't?
| Would it be more humane to incarcerate the undesired person? To
| assassinate them?
| jlmorton wrote:
| > why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where
| nobody wants to live with you?
|
| You might want to step back and take a deeper thought about
| this. We aren't very far removed from redlining and all
| manner of restrictions on where people live.
|
| But even stepping back from mindless restrictions based on
| race, sexuality and religion, this is even problematic with
| objectively undesirable elements, like the homeless.
|
| Lots of states and localities would love to make homelessness
| illegal. Many of them already toe that line. But what is a
| homeless person to do if each and every city outlaws their
| presence?
|
| Will we build giant homeless refugee camps in the country's
| interior?
| pasquinelli wrote:
| > You might want to step back and take a deeper thought
| about this. We aren't very far removed from redlining and
| all manner of restrictions on where people live.
|
| the situation is: in a co-op living arrangement the
| community can kick someone out by consensus.
|
| someone says: why should you be allowed to live somewhere
| if the community wants you out?
|
| you respond talking about redlining and de facto
| criminalization of homelessness. but these things happened
| and are happening not in the context of a cooperative
| community.
|
| so by comparison you have a co-op that can banish someone
| if the community decides on it collectively, and you have a
| status quo where other forces can also banish a person.
|
| i don't get what you're getting at.
| [deleted]
| stale2002 wrote:
| > but these things happened and are happening not in the
| context of a cooperative community.
|
| They absolutely could be. A cooperative community full of
| racists might very well attempt to kick out people of
| certain races.
|
| > you have a status quo where other forces can also
| banish a person.
|
| Ah, see, but we don't have that status quo. Nobody can
| kick me out of my apartment, as long as I keep paying
| rent. And that paying rent part, isn't even strictly
| something that would get me kicked out, in certain
| places!
|
| There are tons of laws and rules and regulations that
| very much prevent people from being kicked out of places.
|
| > i don't get what you're getting at.
|
| What he was getting at, is that it should be obvious that
| just because a majority of people want someone kicked
| out, that this might not be a good reason to actually
| kick them out!
|
| EX: if a majority want to kick out certain races, we, as
| society, should prevent that majority from democratically
| excluding certain races.
|
| So, in other words the answer to the question of "why
| should you be allowed to live somewhere if the community
| wants you out?" is because we live in a society, and in
| that society we want to prevent racists from kicking
| people out of where they live, even if they kick them out
| democratically.
| tmp538394722 wrote:
| If I understand the point you're trying to make - I
| appreciate it, but I wonder if you might be talking past
| each other.
|
| Just to be clear, consensus is intentionally very
| different from a simple majority system - the way that
| most of the historical racist systems have perpetuated.
|
| It's certainly not impossible for these things to exist
| in a consensus based environment, but it's a different
| beast.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Just to be clear, consensus is intentionally very
| different from a simple majority system
|
| Ok call it a consensus then. We as a society, want to
| make laws, that prevent certain communities from enacting
| a "consensus" to kick out certain races from where they
| live.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "i don't get what you're getting at."
|
| like Galileo Galilei,a large number of great people who
| were ahead of their time were persecuted, prosecuted,
| burned at the stake, or worse. Life is more than a
| popularity contest, people have rights even if everyone
| hates them.
|
| I do not take issue with the co-op having this condition
| - maybe they need everyone to gel together for their
| village to work. However I agree with the OP that if this
| were to become a common clause, it would cause even
| greater inequality and discrimination than we have today.
| tdeck wrote:
| All of these are criticisms of heavily centralized power
| strucrures. It's not like everyone in Italy had to come
| to a consensus to burn someone at the stake. It's the
| same with redlining - a few people in the federal housing
| administration wrote these rules that everyone else had
| to follow.
|
| How can 90 people discriminate against a group of 10
| people if every adverse action against one person
| requires the other 99 to agree? This system makes abuse
| much more difficult than the system we have now.
| bsanr2 wrote:
| This, of course, leads to the uncomfortable answer to OP's
| original question. We know what the US would look like
| under those circumstances: it would look like it does
| today.
| pkdpic wrote:
| Aren't we already allowing / building increasingly large
| homeless refugee camps?
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Not in the US. Occasionally, some effort to make a
| homeless camp livable is talked about but the powers-
| that-be still act to do the opposite, first the make
| homeless camp a hellhole and then kick everyone out to
| re-appear elsewhere.
| jollybean wrote:
| "what's the alternative?"
|
| Private property.
|
| With a few municipal bylaws.
|
| All under the jurisdiction of an actual legal framework, with
| a Constitutional foundation.
|
| ...
|
| As the commented noted - and what is apparent in the video,
| these places are a bit more culty than they are secularly
| civic.
|
| 'Free thinkers', bent on re-thinking civilization, can be
| surprisingly authoritarian.
|
| Especially absent the many constraints of regular society,
| and trying to pursue some kind of 'ideal', then a kind of
| authoritarianism takes over - sometimes 'top down' i.e. by
| the 'founder' (i.e. Walt Disney), or the inner circle, or
| more competitively among the rank and file
|
| If there isn't an overt hierarchy - it will form on some
| other subtle basis.
|
| If you thought that 'nosy neighbours' were an issue in small
| towns, try one of these places.
|
| When the 'living space' gets conflated with so many other
| cultural issues, then existential debate ensues perennially.
| It may not exist as 'overt, direct conflict' but rather in
| the minds of the adherents.
|
| I think it's why so few of these places actually exist - we
| really do value our privacy and the freedom to work and do as
| we please.
|
| I certainly am glad that some of them exist, but I think they
| are better framed as legal municipalities, with some specific
| bylaws that are more objectively clear, where they otherwise
| stay out of people's lives. I think a lot of people would go
| for that.
| JPKab wrote:
| "Why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where
| nobody wants to live with you?"
|
| I have no doubt this exact phrase was uttered hundreds of
| times in the 1950s by redlining commissions justifying the
| exclusion of minorities from subdivisions.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| yes, and they succeeded in exclusion of minorities, and
| they were not cooperative communities.
|
| redlining was a policy of banks. people in a community
| didn't vote for it. would they, had there been a vote? no
| one could say, but the point is it wasn't up to them.
|
| so by my reasoning there are fewer vectors for
| discrimination with a co-op.
| netcan wrote:
| There are actual, real discrimination implications to self
| governing communities. Forced eviction isn't likely to be
| the problem, but selective admission is.
|
| That said, reactions here are pretty hyperbolic... jumping
| to a very extreme conclusion that therefore communal
| villages are bad.
|
| Every selective admissions process has the potential
| (probably history) for bigotry. University/school
| admission, mortgage approval, job hiring. Does that mean
| selective hiring needs to end?
|
| The same laws apply to everyone, imperfect as they are.
| illegal discrimination is still illegal. If eco villages
| start representing a major part of society, and >1% of
| people live in them, then I am sure that we'll have this
| discussion. I don't think this is iminent.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| > Every selective admissions process has the potential
| (probably history) for bigotry. University/school
| admission, mortgage approval, job hiring. Does that mean
| selective hiring needs to end?
|
| There's a very big difference between being rejected from
| a university, and being expelled from your home because
| your neighbors dislike you.
|
| I don't see how you make the comparison -- the problem
| we're pointing out _is_ being evicted, not selective
| admission as you 're reframing it to be.
| netcan wrote:
| As I said, I think in the current context of a handful of
| eco villages, evictions are probably very rare.
| Admissions OTOH, aren't rare.
|
| Meanwhile, this also corresponds to reality. In places
| where planned communities of various sorts exist, there
| is occasional tension around racism or other bigotry in
| admission. Almost never around eviction.
|
| I realise that the possibility of eviction is uneasy for
| some. If so, don't live there. Meanwhile, 99.9% of actual
| evictions are in rental context. Sometimes this can
| happen gated communities. For some reason, the commune
| context especially terrifies people.
|
| As to which is worse... housing, education and employment
| are all pretty important.
| exporectomy wrote:
| > racism or other bigotry in admission. Almost never
| around eviction.
|
| Could that be because the victims of eviction are
| individuals without the political power of a whole race
| and its supporters behind them? Obviously evictees are
| not happy being evicted or they would have left
| voluntarily.
|
| > For some reason, the commune context especially
| terrifies people.
|
| My guess is it's the lack of personal freedom and and
| lack of accountability for those who can control your
| life. Slavery sounds scary too even if it involved the
| same practical lifestyle as conventional work. Prison
| sounds scary, yet many people spend all day just sitting
| at home doing nothing more than they would do in prison
| anyway. The feeling of freedom is often more important
| than actually exercising that freedom.
| strainer wrote:
| > expelled from your home because your neighbors dislike
| you
|
| The cause of being expelled, would be that everybody
| thinks you _should be expelled_ - not that no one
| 'likes' you. Framing the judgement as resting on private
| preferences, on likeability, diminishes common humanity
| which should be generally at large and is crucial to the
| persistence of any group. A viable community group will
| include members with tolerance and good judgement who
| would deny a consensus to expel without good cause. If
| such qualities are absent (completely so! to enable bad
| consensus) no amount of individual rights will make up
| for their absence.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > no amount of individual rights will make up for their
| absence.
|
| Of course they will. My neighbors can't get me kicked out
| of my apartment complex, because of my race, no matter
| how much they want that to happen.
|
| And if my landlord attempts to do that, I might be able
| to get a big monetary settlement out of it, depending on
| how many mistakes they make, while going about that.
| strainer wrote:
| If every one of your neighbors is prepared to make you
| leave - for any wrong reason, you are then isolated among
| them. A capacity to remain there may help somewhat, but
| doesn't make up for the unfortunate circumstance, that
| you are surrounded by people who rightly or wrongly
| reject you.
| tibbon wrote:
| Lots of condo co Ops have selective admission
| bsanr2 wrote:
| >Does that mean selective hiring needs to end?
|
| In all honesty, I'm of the opinion that job recruiting
| should involve an objective "required skills" floor, and
| then a lottery for all who meet it. It'd been known for
| some time that hiring is very difficult to do objectively
| and often has similar outcomes wrt retention as sheer
| chance. Luck plays a massive role in opportunity and
| accomplishment, and a systematic acknowledgment of this
| might do well to readjust people's attitudes towards how
| professional accomplishment squares with economic
| dignity.
| fidesomnes wrote:
| yeah and look how quickly every urban city went to hell
| when those rules were abolished.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| I live in an apartment by myself. I cook and eat by myself.
|
| If I want some sort of (eco or otherwise) community, what I'd
| want is some sort of communal kitchen where people cook in
| shifts and eat together. Now, if I'm jerk, people could kick
| me out of the communal kitchen and I'd have to eat at home
| again but I'd continue to have a home (If I kill someone or
| something, that's a different matter).
|
| So the commune where they kick you out of everything
| definitely isn't the only way to do things and none of the
| communes I know of with these sorts of strictures are
| actually very tolerant.
|
| _Also worth considering, what 's the alternative? Calling
| the cops?_
|
| I'm not a fan of calling the cops (especially for random
| crap) but if you're in an organization within the US and you
| don't call the cops when a cop-requiring-crime happens,
| you're in big trouble. I should remind you, this isn't a
| hypothetical post-state world/organization, this is a group
| that exists today and has to follow the constraints the state
| places on it (and I suspect it does).
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| I'd like to add, the police get called for things that
| aren't law enforcement related. But we don't have
| alternatives, do we. And that is unfortunate.
|
| That said, from the swell of defund the police, there have
| been refernces to establish other groups aside the police
| (e.g., for someone having a psychological / mental health
| episode).
| netcan wrote:
| > The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high.
|
| Possibly, but I don't think you can point to an "aha!" clause
| and come to a conclusion.
|
| These things aren't deterministic. A village like this isn't
| strictly defined by its rules. The people there, and the
| culture they develop are they biggest factor. A religious
| oriented community will not be like a socialist one, or like
| one formed by former college friends.
|
| Rules can be unimportant, but communities aren't legible like
| that. A "please leave" clause can be used totally different
| depending on the people involved.
|
| In any case, consensus-based systems tend to get mocked and
| reduced quite a lot. The thing to understand about these ways
| of making decisions is that it's premised on the existence of a
| community of people and a culture of making decisions this way.
| It doesn't necessarily work at an AGM or whatnot, but that
| doesn't mean it doesn't work anywhere.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| I mean, that is what prisons are.
| nipponese wrote:
| I can see where you are going with it but the justice system
| is like a delegated validator with a mandate and
| specifications on how to apply "fairness". I guess I am
| arguing they specialized in kicking people out of the
| community with the mandate to rehabilitate so the rejoin the
| community. In no way am I making the argument that that's
| what actually happens.
| danjac wrote:
| I mean it's not like the US has a history of segregation or
| anything...
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| > (no mention of what happens to their shares, but I assume
| forfeiture).
|
| To be fair, one should be able to "sell" his/her shares at
| market value.
|
| Also related to this particular "expulsion", the practice was
| in use since ancient Greek times, and called "ostracism" [0].
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
| giantg2 wrote:
| I mean, the courts can do all sorts of things. I would say this
| sort of thing can happen indirectly in the civil side where a
| jury finds you less likeable than the other person and levies a
| large judgement against you. At the least you may be stuck with
| a large legal bill that could force you to downsize. There are
| also neighbors who may harass you or make life unbearable.
| weego wrote:
| Isn't that basically what HOAs do but mask it under a chain of
| trivial sounding issues?
| exporectomy wrote:
| If the system itself is the unit of survival, then individual
| members' rights aren't so important. That's the communism way.
| They certainly need to be selective in allowing membership or
| it'll degrade into a bunch of freeloaders.
| cplusplusfellow wrote:
| I would imagine the group-think enforcement in this community
| rivals most totalitarian regimes.
| [deleted]
| FpUser wrote:
| >"At 37:00 she explicitly states the co-op has the authority
| through consensus to legally force someone off the commune"
|
| Does not regular HOA (the US is choke full of those) fine and
| or eventually force you out if your blinds are wrong shade of
| green? I am not sure about the exact details as when I was
| looking for a house it is my first criteria - "no fucking HOA".
| nipponese wrote:
| I don't know much about the topic, can they force you to
| sell/pay fines? What are the penalties and who enforces them?
| mikem170 wrote:
| Homeowners associations in the U.S. can put liens on
| properties for failing to pay dues or fines, foreclose on
| properties, and evict tenants or owners [0]. Generally a
| lawsuit would be involved. Details vary by state.
|
| [0] https://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-condo-association-
| evict-ow...
| eezing wrote:
| "Consensus" is the keyword there. Is this not how the private
| sector operates? An Ecovillage is not my bag, but I get what
| they're trying to do.
| akomtu wrote:
| Consensus here means that a few vocal populists will decide
| the outcome of consensus. For example: "We need to boot that
| communist out of our community! Joe, do you support
| communists? No? Great! Jim, your turn. John, what did you
| say? You're undecided? Fine. We've got enough votes anyway
| and on our next meeting we'll need to discuss whether you
| belong to our friendly community."
| tibbon wrote:
| Those darn authoritarians using consensus.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| America does not have a stellar history nor even present day.
| Red lining still happens. The previous president's son in law
| and family are considered to be slum lords in their operations.
| This is not a political statement, more so about a rich and
| powerful person able to get away with things.
|
| There's other issues like what a Marketplace episode[1] went
| over recently where the system is effectively built to screw
| over some segments of the population into losing their land and
| home.
|
| We still have not done any amending of the horrible tragedies
| that have gained more mainstream awareness in places like Tulsa
| Oklahoma, Wilmington North Carolina, and likely other places.
| We just continue to let the status quo remain today.
|
| Imminent domain coincidentally never seems to affect or bother
| the very well off.
|
| > US would look like if we could kick someone out of their
| neighborhood and force them to sell or give up their home
| simply because we didn't like them
|
| The US and world at large are so far from not being close to
| what you describe those. Sure the exact wording you used may
| not happen [much] any more. That doesn't change the many
| similar not much better situations happening. Nor are past
| examples of authoritarian abuse and the actions you stated
| rectified. The status quo normally remains.
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983897990/how-jacob-louds-
| lan...
| patrickdavey wrote:
| I listened to that show when it came out. Utterly horrifying
| and so blatantly corrupt. Only advertising locally and having
| to pay in cash (so the poor cannot afford to keep their own
| land). Awful.
|
| "In the last hundred years, heirs' property laws have
| contributed to the loss of millions of acres of Black-owed
| land."
| bsanr2 wrote:
| There is quite a lot of appalling real estate-related NPR
| investigative programming to find, if one is so inclined.
| Reveal in particular is a mainstay of, "Inspiring
| justifiable Sunday afternoon vexation over the state of
| Americam society."
|
| https://revealnews.org/podcast/losing-ground/
| dabbledash wrote:
| >> The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high.
|
| I assume this is part of the appeal. The group over individual
| rights.
| teekert wrote:
| In the Netherlands our driving judge (rijdende rechter, a tv
| program) regularly kicks people out of their property when they
| are real anti-social bullies that mess up their neighbors or
| neighborhood.
| exporectomy wrote:
| > real anti-social bullies that mess up their neighbors or
| neighborhood.
|
| That can mean "marginalized for some non-criminal reason".
| Sounds disgusting.
| vkou wrote:
| I would like to point out that a legal justice system that
| kills and imprisons people based on a decision of a judge,
| and optionally, twelve strangers, may be a 'disgusting'
| dystopia, or necessary for society to operate.
|
| What separates the two are the social norms they operate
| under.
|
| I'd also like to remind everyone that in many shared living
| spaces, landlords have the power to kick anti-social people
| out - and the fewer tenant protections there are, the less
| oversight they are subject to.
| ardit33 wrote:
| All NYC coop apartment building have a similar provision.
| Troublesome owners can get kicked out.
|
| In practice it rarely happens, and you are forced to sell your
| shares and move out. Basically you still cash out your
| apartment.
|
| No one can forfeit your place/apt as that would be illegal.
| nipponese wrote:
| Makes sense but what do the bylaws say about someone who
| refuses to sell?
| nradov wrote:
| At that point the co-op board would have to file a lawsuit
| and ask a judge to order the sale. That can be a slow,
| expensive process.
| Kiro wrote:
| This is how all housing (flats) works in Sweden. You don't
| actually buy the apartment but a share in the housing
| cooperative and a right to use that specific flat. If you get
| kicked out your share will be forcibly sold.
| tdeck wrote:
| This doesn't seem more authoritarian than our current system
| where if the right two or three people (cop, DA, judge) don't
| like you they have the power to put you in prison.
| KronisLV wrote:
| I don't doubt that there are certain downsides to living like the
| people in the video (at least when it comes to creature comforts
| and their overall lifestyles), but personally i just find the
| surroundings very scenic and calming.
|
| As someone who got to move away from the city and work remotely
| from my countryside home thanks to the pandemic (silver linings),
| i actually find my current circumstances to be far more stress
| free than the city life, even if going to the store turns out to
| be a larger, weekly event, and washing myself involves heating
| water (or sauna) for a lot of the day with a furnace that
| consumes firewood instead of just jumping into the shower (and,
| you know, the house being cold in the mornings, before the
| centralized heating does a few cycles of water through the
| radiators and everything heats up).
|
| Of course, living in the countryside also involves a huge amount
| of things that need to be done - everything from mowing the lawns
| constantly throughout the summers, tending to the greenhouse (due
| to my dad's desires to have one), using a tractor to mow down the
| grass on the fields and collect it (governmental penalties for
| not doing that), repairing everything that breaks, from water
| pumps, to having to repaint wooden window frames so they don't
| rot, acquiring firewood for the winter, making sure that
| irrigation ditches are okay and don't collapse and so on...
|
| But in exchange for that, i get no nosy neighbors to invade upon
| my privacy, fresh air, no soot from all the cars on the frames of
| my windows (and the inside of my lungs, probably), no sense of
| urban sprawl or the need to rush anywhere and no worries about
| the current pandemic either (even though i'm vaccinated). Plus,
| growing your own tomatoes, cucumbers, onions and herbs, berries
| and other stuff is nice, at least as far as the end results go.
| And building anything or making improvements to the home doesn't
| take permits upon permits upon permits. My sleep is also pretty
| much excellent nowadays and i also have a safe environment for
| doing exercise with no judgement or social pressures whatsoever.
|
| In short, there are both benefits and drawbacks, but living
| closer to the nature just feels more _right_ , a sensation that's
| utterly devoid from urban life, save from regularly visiting
| parks and such.
| jseban wrote:
| It's stress free yes, but also boring for many people. People
| don't live in big cities because of how easy it is to take hot
| showers, they live in big cities because of culture, social
| life, activities, sports, shopping, restaurants, jobs/career,
| nightlife etc etc.
| cpach wrote:
| Indeed. I live in a small town with ~6000 inhabitants. It's
| nice and calm here. But if I go 4-5 days without visiting the
| large nearby city I become incredibly restless.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Having become a parent, I think job and restaurants are the
| only things from your list that still resonate with me.
|
| And after retirement it will only be restaurants.
| Zababa wrote:
| I live in a big city because I suck at all the housework
| stuff and I don't like it, and can easily trade money with
| time by having people do it for me.
| southerntofu wrote:
| > Of course, living in the countryside also involves a huge
| amount of things that need to be done
|
| That's why living in a community has upsides. Of course,
| getting along with your "neighbors" is a prerequisite, but it
| fixes problems such as:
|
| - who's going to take care of X while i'm sick?
|
| - i'm familiar with water pumps, but i have no clue about
| repairing truck engines; who will do it?
|
| - i'm very good at farming but i'm clueless about making bread
|
| In addition, communal living enables economies of scale which
| urban individualized lifestyles have completely dismantled. For
| example, the video mentions communal cooking and laundry, which
| overall consumes much less resources than each household having
| their own fridge/stove/oven/laundromat.
|
| > but living closer to the nature just feels more right, a
| sensation that's utterly devoid from urban life
|
| It feels more right because it is more right. There's nothing
| inherently wrong with some level of population concentration,
| but modern cities are car-centered nightmares where everything
| is concrete and pollution and where life without money is
| utterly impossible, and where the population concentration is
| such that any form of self-sustaining lifestyle is impossible
| (if only for energy and food).
| anm89 wrote:
| They moved a little bit outside a city, not to another plant.
| You can still have someone repair your truck.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Cities have always been describe as worse than the country
| side, even as far back as Epicurus.
|
| I would argue the main issue nowadays is that people born and
| raised in cities are so disconnected from nature that it seems
| hostile to them, they lost all the connections rural people
| grew with and learned to love. All they want is instant
| gratification, convenience at all price, least amount of
| friction and physical work, constant internet connection
|
| I remember watching the stars with my grandma when I was 6 or
| so, we'd get deckchairs, a cup of tea and warm blankets and
| stare at the sky for hours, she told me about the moon, stars,
| the milky way, satellites, potential alien life out there &c.
| It was magical. It was absolutely silent, public lights were
| switched off after some time so the light pollution was very
| low. There was nothing better than waking up with the sound of
| owls or cicadas
|
| I went mushroom picking with my dad every year, learning about
| the right timing and conditions for optimal mushroom growth,
| learning which ones are the best, which ones are comestible but
| not very tasty, which ones will make you sick or kill you, we'd
| see wild animals, their tracks, their skeletons, &c.
|
| We had a garden in which I spent a lot of time, you could
| notice how the different seasons had effects in the flora,
| which insects, birds, small mammals came out of their hiding
| spots and at what time of the year. Seeing how vegetables were
| growing, bending down and snacking on the strawberries you
| planted yourself.
|
| Living in the country side means living in sync with the
| seasons, you witness their impact on the world surrounding you,
| trees, plants, insects, wild animals, type of food you have
| access to, occupations you can enjoy. In the city you're kind
| of locked into a sort of constancy, sure it gets cold or warm,
| you have more or less sunlight, but that's about it, everything
| else stays the same, same activities, same dull concrete
| jungle, same cars going the same way every day, same dark empty
| sky, same constant noise
|
| Now I live in a city, I never get a single minute of silence no
| matter what time of the day or night. I can't see stars, let
| alone the milky way. Insects are pretty much gone besides the
| occasional fly or mosquito. Pigeons and crows make up about 99%
| of wild animals you can spot
|
| I very often go for walks late at night, covid was a blessing
| for that, the streets were virtually empty. During that time
| I've seen a howl, foxes hunting for rats almost every day,
| hares, some kind of weasel, a beautiful heron enjoying the lack
| of tourist boats. Now that people and tourists are back life
| has disappeared again and the noise/cars are back to pre covid
| level
|
| I truly pity people who did not experience this, I wouldn't be
| surprised if it is a big part of the modern alienation a lot of
| people seem to go through
| nicbou wrote:
| It really depends on the city. Mine has a lot of green space,
| and a lot more outside of it if you hop on the train. It is
| not lacking in gardeners, bird watchers, hikers and the other
| varieties of nature lovers. Mushroom picking is pretty big
| amd I do look at the stars from my balcony, though they're
| nothing like those you see in the sticks.
| Tenoke wrote:
| >no soot from all the cars on the frames of my windows (and the
| inside of my lungs, probably)
|
| I suspect all that wood you burn and possibly some of your
| other activities are comparably bad if not worse for your lungs
| but it depends on your setup and which city location we compare
| to.
| nivenkos wrote:
| Looks expensive, the vast majority of us can't afford property
| even in standard towns and cities.
| ericd wrote:
| There was a listing for a 3BR place for sale in the first
| village for ~$300k on their website a few weeks ago, unsure if
| it's still there. I thought that was pretty reasonable.
|
| Also, the majority of people in the US live in homes that their
| family owns.
| beckman466 wrote:
| If anyone wants a sort of text version of this Ithaca tour:
| https://medium.com/@fredlaloux/we-are-wired-to-raise-childre...
| mikewarot wrote:
| Someone has to keep the bad people out, or the sociopaths take
| over, which is my understanding of the main failure mechanism of
| communes started in the 1960s. This thought is what came to mind,
| and I stopped watching at about 4:30 when I realized the person
| being interviewed must be the owner / gatekeeper. At some point
| she'll pass, or get bought out, or whatever, and it'll all fall
| apart.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| I understand these people do not trade with ,,impure societies"
| like ours at all and would never seek medical assistance from us?
|
| Or is this basically one big NIMBY?
| JPKab wrote:
| I spent time in an ecovillage in western North Carolina almost 20
| years ago.
|
| Question:
|
| Who does the agricultural labor here? I watched the first 15
| minutes of the video, and was very curious about this.
|
| The ecovillage I lived in was primarily younger people who did
| their own labor. A lot of it was backbreaking. We did our own
| construction as well. And YES, people got kicked out if they
| didn't work hard enough, and that happened several times. When I
| see an creepy old boomer hippy lady who sounds like a cult-
| leader, who doesn't look like she's capable of doing any kind of
| manual labor, I question if they are paying people to come in and
| handle the agriculture for them. These people all look like they
| are swimming in money. The ecovillage I lived in was not like
| that at all. We all ended up looking like a bunch of farmers and
| construction workers, because that's basically what you HAD to do
| to make it work.
|
| I'm sure I'm tying up the wrong things in the concept of an
| ecovillage. The one I lived in was probably a lot more off-the-
| grid than this one was intended to be.
| ericd wrote:
| If you keep watching, they answer the question about who runs
| the agriculture (it's a family that moved in that took over
| from the original runners of the farm).
| rmah wrote:
| I don't really see the difference between this and a coop
| apartment building except that it's in a rural setting. So, many
| of the social structures of traditional old world villages but
| cooperatively owned and in the USA. I don't understand what's
| "eco" about it (vs any other rural community, I mean). Am I
| missing something critical?
| floatrock wrote:
| Someone else posted a googlemaps view of the place:
| https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ecovillage+At+Ithaca+Inc/@...
|
| All the houses' roofs are south-facing, which combined with
| large overhangs, are a passivhaus thing (maximum heat energy in
| the winter when the sun is low, large overhangs block some of
| that in the summer when the sun is high).
|
| Some houses have solar on the roof, while the neighborhood to
| the north has a small centralized solar farm. If you have the
| land, it's a lot more cost-effective to put a centralized
| amount of ground-mounted solar and distribute it to a dense
| cluster of houses nearby. They mentioned they designed all the
| homes in their latest batch to shun natgas and go all electric.
|
| And then there's a bunch of "eco-mindset" things where it looks
| like they park their cars in communal lots and the houses are
| connected by pedestrian paths. Their development model is 10%
| developed/90% open-space (or something like that which flips
| the common american subdivision percentages). They said they
| aren't trying to be completely self-sufficient (they're 15min
| drive to downtown Ithica), but they do take steps like a have
| an onsite CSA.
|
| So I don't think they're being "eco" if you think eco means
| some absolutely self-sufficient car-free hippie in the woods.
| But that's also an impossible ideal -- even the unabomber who
| railed against the evils of capitalism still had walmart
| receipts in his shack, and Thoreau got through the Walden Pond
| winter with his mom bringing him soup or something like that.
| But as for "eco" in terms of lifestyle arrangements that give
| you a good mix of modern and sustainable life, yeah, seems like
| they're doing a good job.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| > I don't understand what's "eco" about it.
|
| Seeing far too many cars in that video for any of it to be
| considered "eco".
| ericd wrote:
| The houses in the newest community are energy neutral/built
| to passivhaus standards. That's quite unusual in the US. And
| much of their food comes from an on-site farm CSA. And
| they've left 90% of the land relatively wild, which should
| help preserve biodiversity. They've still got cars, but
| they're certainly doing better than average.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Maybe it's because I'm not American but the idea of a
| village which is remote but still has access to a town or
| city via bus or bike is very much a possibility and normal
| in lots of parts of the world.
|
| Cars are nowhere near as essential as American city and
| suburb planning unfortunately makes it seem like.
| 0x0nyandesu wrote:
| Why are people on HN so obsessed with this concept? I've always
| found these communities require a lose of freedom to fully
| integrate and typically anything "other" in these communities is
| quickly expelled because the community could not function
| otherwise.
| neogodless wrote:
| > Why are people on HN so obsessed with this concept?
|
| ... what?
|
| 54 upvotes. I often see posts with a 1000 upvotes. I don't see
| a lot of stories about communal living. "Obsessed" might not be
| the right word here.
| mchaver wrote:
| > Why are people on HN so obsessed with this concept?
|
| I think HN users have a strong sense of curiosity. Some may
| aspire to live in these communities, others are just curious to
| hear their story. It's the first time I have seen a topic like
| this on HN.
| nicbou wrote:
| It's almost the complete opposite of the average programmer's
| lifestyle. You work on something close and concrete, without
| the usual social structure nor the pressure to monetise.
|
| It's definitely not for me, but I can see why it would attract
| the curosity of people on the opposite patch of grass.
| dvh wrote:
| Should leaf blowers be banned? Freedom is important but if the
| result is miserable living you want to escape then perhaps a
| some kind of rules are viable alternative. Live alone free or
| join community with rules.
|
| I like the idea of eco village but these projects are often ran
| by religious cults, I would prefer atheistic and science
| friendly eco village.
| google234123 wrote:
| Gas blowers should be banned -- too much pollution for the
| little value they bring to society.
| 0x0nyandesu wrote:
| I just mean that typically these communities require you to
| do some form of manual labor to "take care of" the housing or
| making food. Nevermind that you might be able to do the same
| thing on your own land in your own time and come away doing
| less work on average then if you're forceably conscripted to
| do these tasks for the community. It's not at all about what
| type of technology you'd use to do the task but rather having
| to do it at all.
| drewvolpe wrote:
| We like hackers and free thinkers. Communities like these are
| hacking modern society. Even if they don't work or aren't
| appealing to me, they're all interesting experiments that can
| teach us something about societies, group dynamics,
| governments, property rights, etc.
| brudgers wrote:
| It's not a walkable community. No grocery store. No restaraunts.
| No doctors offices or dentists.
|
| If you look at the map and don't have the public relations
| material in front of you, the urban form is ordinary exurban
| sprawl.
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ecovillage+At+Ithaca+Inc/@...
|
| Sure there's a bus stop at the end of it's long driveway. Route
| 20 has six buses per weekday. Three buses a day on the weekends.
| https://tcatbus.com/bus-schedules
|
| If you're going anywhere in the long cold Ithaca winter, a car is
| the most practical option because it's still sprawl. Maybe better
| sprawl. But still sprawl even though there's a garden instead of
| a golf course.
| [deleted]
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Well, ideally the communal kitchen and eating area would
| essentially substitute for both restaurants and grocery stores.
| The potential for socializing seems a lot like that of a small
| college - most people socialize during meal times and people
| who feel more like socializing can hang out in the communal
| areas between meal times. Which is to say, it's a space that
| has a lot more social potential than the grocery
| store/restaurant combo. Restaurants are for celebrating and
| meeting people you know. I don't think anyone socializes at all
| in grocery stores (though simple contact has its benefits).
|
| The "village" is divided into three neighborhood, all of which
| appear walkable (from a brief glance at the video). What I
| personally wouldn't like would be the small scale and having to
| buy-in and put all your eggs in the eco-village basket, so to
| speak.
| [deleted]
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| This is, in a way, a dream of mine.
|
| However, I wouldn't want to live in a "commune", but rather I'd
| like to convince ~1,000 people to buy a mountain on the Italian
| Alps, or an island somewhere, or a large plot of land, and then
| build some eco-friendly homes, and live there with interesting,
| nice people - while at the same time maintaining my privacy and
| my own "space" in my house.
| codingdave wrote:
| "Cohousing" was the term for this 10-20 years ago. I haven't
| heard much about it since, but there was a small movement
| towards exactly that concept a while back. It may be worth
| researching it to see where it lies today.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| Oh, trust me, I have researched "co-housing" and similar
| concepts. The missing link seems to be that there's a clear
| advantage in being able to bring together hundreds of people,
| and "optimize" the logistics and the construction of the
| site. And so far, very few have succeeded in doing so.
| smitty1e wrote:
| I am completely, 100% on board with what these people are doing
| and hope they find much joy.
|
| What gives me pause is the certainty that these stylings will not
| scale. Once the populatione exceeds Dunbar's Number[1], a
| management layer must needs precipitate, and the Iron Law of
| Oligarchy[2] will kick in. Inevitably.
|
| The notion that cool ideas like this can apply to large, non-
| self-selecting populations is a bugaboo.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
|
| [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
| southerntofu wrote:
| > Dunbar's Number
|
| It's ok. You don't have to scale. Just have lots and lots of
| smaller communes and federate. If email and ActivityPub can
| work like that, why not AFK communities?
|
| > Iron Law of Oligarchy
|
| Now that's really not a scientific concept. Just because
| something does not appear to exist doesn't mean it's not
| possible. I personally strongly disagree that any form of
| organization is tyranny: depending on the modes of organizing,
| it can be pretty liberatory in giving a common framework for
| empowering me to act in ways i could never if i were alone and
| isolated.
|
| Building collective power is not necessarily to the detriment
| of individual power, though i'm not suggesting that finding a
| balance is always easy.
| mcculley wrote:
| I am interested in how well even smaller communes have scaled
| through time and not necessarily through space and population
| size. One force that works against communism is the tendency
| of people to favor their progeny when allocating resources.
| Is there good documentation or history on communes that
| survive through multiple generations?
| smitty1e wrote:
| > strongly disagree that any form of organization is tyranny
|
| Not to get hung up on your quantifier, or the idea of
| organization as such, the issue is the feedback loops that
| keep the organizational structure in acceptable trim.
|
| The overwhelming majority of bureaucracies tend toward a
| Tower of Babel situation over time.
| throwamon wrote:
| > Just have lots and lots of smaller communes and federate
|
| As long as humans are humans, good luck. If even a tiny
| percentage of these have even slightly above average
| narcissism / sociopathic tendencies / charisma, we'll be
| seeing social dynamics play out that end up in winner-take-
| all situations and tensions, communes merging into larger
| structures based on ideology, etc.
| grecy wrote:
| > _What gives me pause is the certainty that these stylings
| will not scale_
|
| Why does that matter?
|
| That's like saying my backyard vegetable garden will not scale
| to feed the entire street, or that the new M1 MacBook Pro won't
| scale to train the Tesla AI.
|
| Just because something doesn't scale it doesn't mean it isn't a
| great thing worthy of perusing & learning from.
| smitty1e wrote:
| Hence my leadoff:
|
| > I am completely, 100% on board with what these people are
| doing and hope they find much joy.
|
| Looks like a wonderful place. But such contexts (thinking the
| Amish here) are sustained by the kind of cohesion that will
| be challenging to generalize.
|
| But watch some idealist try.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yes, my take was a little more toward, you don't _scale_ it,
| you rather replicate lots and lots of small villages.
|
| Having just typed that though, I agree with OP that even lots
| and lots of these could not replace a dense urban city. You
| know, unless some plague wiped out 90% of our population.
| smitty1e wrote:
| I'm more worried about the visionary that wants to set
| themselves over a fee dozen such challenges and then start
| bossing everone around.
|
| For the "common good". You understand. These sad tales
| always stem from the best intentions.
| bla3 wrote:
| From [2]:
|
| > According to a 2005 study, "Despite almost a century of
| scholarly debate on this question... there is still no
| consensus about whether and under what conditions Michels's
| claim holds true"
| smitty1e wrote:
| OK, but Dunbar's Number is likely some flavor of upper limit.
| refurb wrote:
| How many business partnerships fall apart due to interpersonal
| differences? Families?
|
| I don't think you even need to hit the Dunbar number for it to
| fail.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Reminds me of the commune in 'once upon a time in Hollywood', but
| without the pregnancy.
| smileysteve wrote:
| As an American growing up in a suburb on a 1/2 acre, these
| numbers aren't making any sense to me; 175 acres should support
| at least 175 _families_
|
| and each 1/2 acre should be able to support a small business and
| garden plot on those resources, and eco erosion controls, streams
| and wetlands... If of a even slightly conservative mindset.
| ericd wrote:
| If you watch the video, they mention that they left ~90% of it
| to nature, iirc, though I'm not sure if they include the farms
| in that. Does that clear it up?
| brylie wrote:
| From the video, there are four on-site organic farms. Garden
| plots may not produce enough food to sustain the community.
|
| Also, it looks like there are natural open spaces preserved on
| some of the acreage.
| smileysteve wrote:
| These suburb neighborhoods in America though use that extra
| 1/2 acre per family to support swim, tennis, playground,
| small football fields, community house.
|
| Anecdotally; the neighborhood of 400 houses, each on 1/2
| acre,I reference was < 1 mile distance to an elementary, high
| school, chain grocery store, and local store fronts - and
| served 4 similar neighborhoods in 1 mile distance. Other
| "eco" features supported were 3 retention ponds and multiple
| streams.
|
| Was it eco? No. If everybody had a garden plot, and biked
| would it be more eco than this (1/2 to 1/3 the density)
| neighborhood selling itself as eco, probably
| cletus wrote:
| It looks like the legal structure for cooperative housing
| ("coop") like this originated in Germany and first came to the
| United States via New York City [1]:
|
| > The first housing cooperative in the United States organized
| under the Rochdale Cooperative Principles was developed in
| Brooklyn, New York in 1918 by a group of Finnish artisans - the
| Finnish Home Building Association.
|
| Coops remain extraordinarily popular in New York City. The vast
| majority of apartment buildings in Manhattan are coops. Many from
| elsewhere don't really know what this means. There are broadly
| two popular models of property ownership:
|
| 1. Condominiums. These are titled with the city and state as a
| distinct lot with the owner's name on it. Nearly always these are
| part of an HOA that is responsible for maintenance of common
| areas and establishing and enforcing rules. For reference,
| single-family homes ("SFHs") are typically in this model but in
| the US, SFHs aren't called condos. That's reserved for apartments
| and townhouses; and
|
| 2. Coops. The building is owned by a legal entity like a
| corporation. As far as the city and state are concerned, that
| whole building is one lot and is taxed as one unit. The coop is
| responsible for paying that property tax bill. You don't own your
| apartment the same way you do in a condo. You own shares in the
| coop that give you the right to a particular apartment.
| Maintaining the coop and paying expenses like property taxes is
| apportioned by the number of shares to each owner as a
| maintenance fee.
|
| It's worth noting that in New York state these two work very
| differently in terms of property tax assessment, which has been a
| point of contention between the city and the state for decades.
|
| Basically, coops are assessed in terms of Assessed Rental Value
| ("ARV") and condos/SFHs are not such that a coop might have an
| apportioned property tax bill of two times or more of a similarly
| valued coop. It also means a $100m condo has a tax bill of only
| 10-15x that of a $1m coop, which is ridiculous.
|
| Anyway, I wonder since this community is a coop how it gets
| caught up in this tax treatment compared to similarly valued SFHs
| in the area.
|
| [1]:
| https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13...
| refurb wrote:
| Condos are typically property where you own a specific part of
| a larger property (a legally recognized/identified "interest")
| plus an agreement to maintain everything else that isnt
| explicitly exclusively yours ("common space"). The condos I've
| own show true ownership share - even the land (though no
| distinct part, just fractional ownership).
|
| Single family homes are different in the sense that it's one
| legally defined property where 100% of it is for the exclusive
| use of the owner. HOAs can include a group of individual
| properties plus (or not) common space.
|
| Your description of co-ops reminds me of TICs (tenancy in
| common) in CA. The property is viewed as one "unit" although it
| may be subdivided by tenants through a separate agreeemnt.
| Typically in TICs you buy an entire building and have a
| separate agreement that lays out what is exclusive and what is
| common. But the city sees it as one property in its entirety
| with multiple owners.
| golemiprague wrote:
| So they reinvented a variation of the kibbutz? There are many
| communities like that in Israel with different variations of
| communality and with different variations of success. I would say
| the success rate is a bit like startups but the ones that
| survived and prospered can be a very nice place to live for the
| people who like that kind of life. It is certainly not for
| everyone and some places are struggling to convince the younger
| generations to stay.
| test6554 wrote:
| I wonder what the quality of life is like. How much manual labor
| is required? Does their local climate require much air
| conditioning and if so, how much air conditioning do their
| residents get? What happens if someone is too old to work or just
| no longer feels like working/contributing?
| whbrown wrote:
| Probably no more labor than any other organic farm, which is to
| say, far more than most people expect but tolerable. And
| upstate New York is quite agreeable even in the height of
| summertime.
|
| Winter is a different story.
|
| I'm more curious about what sort of social responsibilities are
| required. Do you have to engage in all that `frog`, `song`,
| `tree` triteness or is it truly an open and accepting
| community?
| jcims wrote:
| Its in Ithaca New York - https://goo.gl/maps/9QkytRGYivgZ6oQ89
|
| This past August they were hitting highs 80's with 80%+ average
| humidity.
|
| https://www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/ny/ithaca/KI...
|
| Definitely could use some air conditioning.
| Glench wrote:
| That Eco village is cool.
|
| Bit of trivia: The guy who wrote the amazing book Reinventing
| Organizations about actual, >100 person, successful companies
| that are organized non-hierarchically moved to that ecovillage
| with his family and seems to be really enjoying it. Here's the
| book in a "pay what it's worth to you after you're done reading"
| format: https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-
| righ...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| My brother lived, for a while, in a Sun City "community."
| Everyone owned their own property. There was a common house for
| parties, billiards, etc., tennis courts, and I think a swimming
| pool. It was for 55-and-over people. I would bet most of _these_
| people are older, too, but I didn 't watch the whole video so I
| could be wrong.
|
| It didn't have all the eco vibes, but that probably has more to
| do with the desert-ish setting. No communitarian stuff. I don't
| know if they had an HOA, but probably the corporation handled
| those functions.
|
| Not at all Black Mirror-like and no one was suspiciously happy. I
| don't know if you could be kicked out, but it wouldn't happen by
| a vote by your neighbors, for sure.
|
| I don't see how this is real different. Personally, I'd rather
| have a soulless corporation making the rules than a bunch of
| Karens off NextDoor.
| brudgers wrote:
| Sun City ("City's"?) was/were the brainchild of Del Webb. He
| got out in front of the World War 2 generation of Americans as
| it hit retirement age. He brought a country club lifestyle to
| midwesterners on cheap land outside Phoenix.
|
| Not much of a hard sell of year round sunshine and warm weather
| to an empty nest couple from Iowa. That couple brought church
| social culture skills into the community clubhouses.
|
| The success of the original developments, brought the brand
| into Florida as well.
|
| One of Del Webb's insights was building developments large
| enough to accommodate multiple market segments. Large enough to
| balance people with three ideas of retirement: playing, saving,
| and finally having that dream house.
|
| Along golf course fairways, you'll find attached dwellings,
| small houses, and large houses. The occupants in each segment
| will be a mix of people who have downsized, streched to
| upscale, and moved laterally.
|
| It was a money making machine. At it's height, developers would
| build the golf courses and give them away to another business
| to run (under the old saw "the best way to make a small fortune
| is take a large fortune and build a golf course"). The profits
| were all taken as lot premiums.
|
| Anyway, all 55+ communities with fee simple ownership have
| HOA's because the age requirements are deed restrictions. Sun
| City's and other Del Webb communities have very active HOA's.
| That's why people buy into them.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I guess the big Sun City is NW of Phoenix, but that's not
| where my brother lived. I don't _think_ it had a golf course,
| but maybe it did.
| brudgers wrote:
| Sun City, AZ https://goo.gl/maps/iD6yn4uiNyTPp5URA
|
| My favorite design decision is the futurist circular
| course. They don't build them like that anymore.
|
| So easy for a layperson to understand when looking at a
| sales brochure's neighborhood map.
| foxhop wrote:
| People who say this won't scale don't understand history. The
| things that scale, fail, often spectacularly. Systems like this
| reboot humanity. I'm into Permaculture [0] and I build and
| document systems which make this type of living work for the
| majority.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1eySW_9TiI5wnvTnIIw2Nw
|
| We will rebuild together, stronger.
| daddylongstroke wrote:
| Yeah it's a bit bizarre hearing people say "this could never
| work", and them not understanding that it has "worked" this way
| for most of human history.
| kcb wrote:
| For most of human history humanity did not exist in the form
| it does today. There are regions in countries with higher
| population than the entire planet a few hundred years ago. So
| I don't think we can take much lesson about scale from the
| past.
| pibechorro wrote:
| Awesome. Its crazy how much red tape, legal costs, etc they got
| from the town and state. We would have thousands of these up if
| people where free from all the regulations which are really just
| propping up high tax revenue, low nature designs.
| jcims wrote:
| I need to bookmark this and use it to test my progress in
| socializing myself a bit. I have zero problems with the idea, I
| live in the country and am totally on board with the independence
| and natural setting...but I had a nearly instant phobia-like
| physical reaction to the video. I tried to power through it,
| clicking around to see if it got better but ultimately had to
| stop watching after a minute or so. It was sort of like
| claustrophobia combined with the sense of multiple people
| touching me or something. Really bizarre.
| [deleted]
| jollybean wrote:
| 'Midsommar' vibes for sure.
|
| I really like that these places exist but I wish there were
| regular municipal variations that didn't involve such a 'full
| in'.
| jpgvm wrote:
| Man I identify with this feeling so much.
|
| Most of this is things I am really interested in, living off
| the land, renewable power, etc. 99% of the concepts are right
| down my alley.
|
| But the overall feeling of just.. more people than I am used
| to? Just found it really off putting and couldn't watch without
| sort of skipping through to see the bits I wanted to see.
|
| I am somewhat planning to start building my own full off-grid
| setup soon but I'm planning to go it alone. I'm not a hermit
| but I think I need space to myself more so than others.
| southerntofu wrote:
| > I am somewhat planning to start building my own full off-
| grid setup soon but I'm planning to go it alone. I'm not a
| hermit but I think I need space to myself more so than
| others.
|
| You can live in a commune and have personal space. Not all
| communes have dormitories (it's really an anti-soviet
| cliche)... most have individual or small collective
| (consented) housing with strong collective infrastructure.
|
| Anarchist ideals have been instrumental in building free
| communes over the past two centuries, and they refuse a false
| dichotomy between individual welfare and community building.
| We can have the two at the same time, as long as we choose
| carefully who to live with, and properly define what our
| collective project is.
| jseban wrote:
| Same here, and that lady gives me the heebie-jeebies, and the
| way she speaks gives me cult vibes. I don't get the point of
| this either, it's just reinventing a village, only more
| cramped. Seems like she just used her political connections and
| this eco branding to "raise money" for her own house
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| The woman showed her hand early on when she "flexed" to tell
| us that the solar panels were installed on the commons
| building 20 years ago.
|
| I was hoping she would be without ego, cast off any elitist
| appearances but as I say I saw cracks.
|
| I still like the idea though.
|
| I see myself as the curmudgeonly old man that doesn't greet
| anyone, or at least the village idiot.
| throwamon wrote:
| She looks and sounds like Noam Chomsky. It's like watching a
| clip from a parallel universe where he's a woman and more
| "hands-on" than academic.
| southerntofu wrote:
| > It was sort of like claustrophobia combined with the sense of
| multiple people touching me or something. Really bizarre.
|
| I think there's many layers to it, but the super sweet ambient
| music with suspiciously-happy people also made me very uneasy.
| One aspect of why could be because video fails to capture the
| actual atmosphere: for example we have no smells. Another one
| is because such scenery immediately reminds me of cult cliches:
| in mainstream media and movies when we're presented which
| something that looks so nice there's usually a plot twist
| coming up :)
| the_other wrote:
| I visited a cohousing project in Leeds, UK[0], a couple of
| years ago. I experienced first-hand the "cult-like" and
| "suspiciously happy" vibes.
|
| My most generous interpretation (and the one I cling to
| because I hope to live in cohousing one day) is this: cults
| and many religions answer big questions for you, meaning
| you're not background-level concerned with those things any
| more. Your stress goes down. They help you sync up your
| behaviours and world-views in a way that typically many of us
| struggle with in the "urban West". I guess/intuit/hope that
| cohousing does the same. You're (mostly) out of the housing
| market; you have (likely) had a hand in planning how you
| live; you know most of your neighbours and likely have built
| (or designed and managed) roads, drains houses and gardens
| with them; you have met or helped set guidelines about the
| neighbours who weren't involved with the build; your
| outgoings are (hopefully) lower; your daily surroundings are
| (hopefully) nicer and you're a (part-)owner of them, and have
| a rota for helping manage them.
|
| [0]: https://www.lilac.coop/
| JPKab wrote:
| Good observations here. And if we're honest about this, the
| Amish in Pennsylvania (and a few other states) have had
| this nailed a lot longer than these folks.
| the_other wrote:
| Right.
|
| The "suspiciously happy" thing is (I hope) a tell that
| the current defaults are off.
| temp8964 wrote:
| It's just two women talking in the video (assuming we watched
| the same video). Is your feeling really about the video or the
| content they are talking about?
| jcims wrote:
| I have absolutely no idea, I mentioned phobia because it's
| not rational and I don't know what the source is. I debated
| even posting because it comes off as negativity towards the
| video, which isn't my intent. For me it was such an oddly
| powerful visceral experience that I was curious if anyone
| else had it I guess.
|
| Edit: I tried watching it again to see if I can figure out
| the triggers
|
| - We seemingly start mid-conversation which invokes a
| fleeting feeling of information deficit.
|
| - The tree on the left and the short setback of the house on
| the right makes it feel extremely crowded. There's greenery
| but the overly landscaped setting makes it feel unnatural. It
| looks like a production set instead of a place to live.
|
| - The entire first sentence and unnatural cadence and facial
| expression feels like a sales pitch. It's a community,
| nothing is 'perfect', its all tradeoffs.
|
| - Co-housing evokes roommates (i'm sure it has other meanings
| but that's what it meant to me) and the tethering connotation
| in the word 'connection' just sealed the deal. We're 7
| seconds in and I'm on full alert by this point lol. I want to
| run away.
|
| - Queue nursing home music and more crowded shots with
| obscured views.
| temp8964 wrote:
| I skimmed through the video and did not pay attention to
| what they were talking about at all. The thing feels
| strange to me is that there was almost nobody else appeared
| in the video. Nobody was doing anything in the garden or
| just walking in the fields to enjoy the nature. The images
| taken from the sky also showed no sign of human activity.
| Again, I just skimmed through the video and I may have
| missed them.
| southerntofu wrote:
| It's a very common pattern when videotaping communities.
| Not everyone is happy to have a camera around, and
| there's usually agreements that the camera will stay in a
| certain corner and that only people who _consent_ to be
| filmed will be on tape.
| oblak wrote:
| Looked fairly normal to me. This isn't a Holywood movie
| where they have to show you the life in 30 seconds or so.
| jcims wrote:
| That's actually an amazing point. I didn't pick up on it
| at first but now that you mention it clearly was part of
| the uncanny feel of the whole thing.
| emerged wrote:
| It feels performative. Not even necessarily just the video
| but living in that world it seems like you'd need to
| basically play along with how great and perfect everything
| is.
|
| I'm with you where this is my impression from the video
| while I have nothing theoretically against the idea itself.
| mettamage wrote:
| It feels a bit Black Mirror like to be honest. It kind of
| reminds me of the episode where people are dating each
| other. And in the end the dating turned out to be a
| simulation of many simulations so that a score could be
| determined between the real people. That episode (forgot
| the title) has a neighborhood that feels a bit like this
| (though more high tech).
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I wonder if our popular culture has basically conditioned
| us to distrust community in general, and so we
| automatically have a visceral reaction whenever it's
| portrayed in a highly positive light. Or really,
| portraying almost anything in a highly positive light is
| viewed with distrust. We're a culture of jaded cynics
| now. An attitude probably incompatible with community.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > "popular culture has basically conditioned us to
| distrust community in general"
|
| Or maybe people reach those conclusions on their own!
| Does it have to be that they were "conditioned" to them,
| or can they have agency?
| jwilber wrote:
| "Hang the DJ" - named after the song played in the bar
| scene. Great episode.
| devmunchies wrote:
| I would hope that one of the benefits of an eco village
| is less people would be comparing things to tv shows all
| the time.
| jcims wrote:
| They aren't Amish, I'm sure they still have TVs.
| devmunchies wrote:
| Yeah, but many of these types of people (like Waldorf
| schools) try not to see the world through the lens of
| media you consume.
| JPKab wrote:
| I sped through the video, looking for details on who does
| building maintenance and construction, who grows the food and
| does the actual labor. Not seeing any of that gave me bad
| vibes. It makes me think that this is more of a stylish
| residence than an actual self-sustaining commune. My father is
| a radical boomer environmental activist, and the whole video
| made me think of when he'd invite like 30 PETA and EarthFirst
| activists to our land after we had finally built a house on it.
| They all had that same kind of regionless accent, with the slow
| intonations and the cult-y, faux profoundness. Based on my
| experience with these folks, they are basically evangelical
| fundamentalists wearing turquoise and Patagonia, and should be
| avoided at all costs.
|
| Somebody is fixing the buildings and growing the food, and I
| strongly suspect it's nobody living in these houses.
| corey_moncure wrote:
| Could it be the architecture of the houses? For me it reminds
| me of oppressive and claustrophobic places like Svalbard.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Most intersting to me is the decision making, governance, dispute
| resolution, starts here (https://youtu.be/n-uH36w9xg8?t=1737)
|
| Few notes from it at 1.75 speed:
|
| Two separate methods, "consensus" and "dynamic governance," which
| are spread across three neighbourhoods, with all three
| neighbourhood boards meeting together once a month. Leans heavily
| on elder retired people who have the time to participate in the
| governance. Ownership is owning shares in whole co-op that are
| related to the size of the house.
|
| Coexistence is apparently easier with a larger group, (30-40),
| and groups that are too small get at each other (10 households)
| and cause harm to the relationships with everyone, where a
| conflict doesn't impact the cohesion of a larger group of 35-40.
| Dilution of relationships sounds important.
|
| This comes up again when they talk about multiple special purpose
| vehicles for neighbourhoods financially interacting so loss of
| one doesn't impact the other ones. It's kind of micro-federated,
| where federation isn't a response to growth, but rather, a
| necessary stability feature of surviving as small.
|
| They're the size of a small village, and it seems like you need
| that critical mass to keep it running so it can evolve
| organically and even a bit chaotically, and it's not close enough
| to each other that they will aligning all in one direction (good
| or bad) and causing strife. I could see how the whole thing could
| be vulnerable to politics, but it looks like their federated
| governance model mitigates lockstep.
|
| It reminds me a bit of a talk I heard about Native influence on
| the creation of the US constitution, via Mowhawk Chief Joseph
| Brant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace
| netcan wrote:
| To those of us (most of us) from a liberal background, I think
| governance of these kinds can be confusing. We look for legible
| rulesets and interrogate them with " _what happens if._ " At a
| second level, we look for legible dynamics like the influence
| of group size you mention.
|
| None of these are wrong but they're not _necessarily_ key to
| the character of the system. "Consensus," meaning something
| more complex than "vote until everyone agrees," is a pretty
| natural way of making in tightly knit groups. We do it without
| realising we do it. Some people talk. Some agree. Some object.
| People talk some more. Usually, a consensus forms.
|
| It's voting or other formal authority systems that _need_ to be
| invented. They don 't tend to exist by default. Not every
| culture has voting. Every culture has talking until a decision
| is made.
|
| Consider jury systems. These are pretty formal, but they do
| have some consensus as part of the system. This is premised on
| jurors spending a lot of time together, discussing, argueing,
| etc.
|
| Anyway, my point is that the most important parts are probably
| ilegible. A functioning culture forms, or it does not. The
| right governance rules or group size, with the wrong group of
| people will not work. The reverse probably will.
| motohagiography wrote:
| The interesting thing to me about communities like this that
| manage to persist for decades is, they find a balance of
| synergistic independence with collective identity.
|
| They don't need to invent much, but they need to agree on a
| layer of abstraction above the personal interests of each
| person in a verbal consensus. Indeed, every group and culture
| talks until they reach consensus, but the ones who abstract
| the mechanisms with principles tend to manage growth more
| persistently. I viewed this ecovillage as a startup solving
| the ur-problem of governance, but instead of growing like a
| startup, the are just trying to sustain an equillibrium.
| netcan wrote:
| Re: agree on a layer of abstraction; the ur-problem^ of
| governance; abstracting the mechanisms with principles
|
| Those can be important. I think in a modern context these
| will probably exist, because we're already familiar with
| charters, constitutions and such. They're probably quite
| necessary for dealing with disputes or property
| implications in a legally compatible way.
|
| That said, I think considering these primary is probably a
| mistake, over extrapolating from the macropolitics we know.
|
| The idea is _not_ to design a decision making process. Let
| a process emerge, using our natural social abilities as
| people to to navigate it. Whatever emerges will probably be
| people dependant.
|
| A designed system that works, has answers and resolutions
| for every eventuality and problem is a least common
| denominator system. You might have to default to this is
| you need governance for a random collection of people
| without a binding thread. But for any real community with
| solidarity, they likely make it work in a more organic way.
| It'll depend on the individuals and results will vary a lot
| between groups.
|
| ^What's an ur-problem?
| monroeclinton wrote:
| The ur-problem is probably a reference to Goethe. In
| German 'ur' is a prefix that means
| primeval/original/ancient. So an ur-problem of governance
| is the original problem of governance.
| netcan wrote:
| I know quite a few people who grew up on a kibbutz, Israeli
| communes that were formed mostly in the early 20th century. Most
| of them "privatized" in the last generation. They were quite
| successful. One of the bigger modern examples.
|
| A noteworthy point made by most first-handers is that "mission"
| was a necessary component. Kibbutzim often offered a relatively
| pleasant lifestyle, but lifestyle alone could not keep them
| alive. They needed to be fulfilling a greater purpose. For
| Kibbutzim the mission was zionism, socialism or other ideal.
| "Ideology" is an important concept to kibbutzniks.
|
| Kibbutz lifestyle and economics were good when the movement
| started to recede. It was the changing ideals that killed it,
| especially the decline of socialist beliefs in the 80s & 90s.
|
| I think it's also notable that a lot of communes exist in the
| world. Most are religious. Many are quirky, even cultish. This
| probably provides the "greater mission" old kibbutzniks insist is
| essential to success.
|
| A lot of the modern, secular equivalents are "eco villages." I
| could imagine a libertarian one or other anarchist idea set.
| robocat wrote:
| I like this article which is mostly about one guy, but contains
| some of the background on the changes to Kibbutzism:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/07/09/...
|
| An article from 1986 said: "About 20,000 volunteers", "Israel's
| 280 kibbutzim", "About 3 percent of Israel's 3.5 million Jewish
| population live on communal farms" implies ~5% labour from
| volunteers (assuming 3 month average stay and full time work).
| https://apnews.com/article/96bc6ecc6ae2f9ba6c4707a39babffa6
|
| A modern equivalent in New Zealand is wwoofers.
| [deleted]
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I heard recently that Vienna, who seem to have housing more under
| control than many other cities, tries to build new housing
| developments around these kind of communities as they kick-start
| the "community" part of a newly built area, though on a far more
| urban level than this.
|
| https://miesarch.com/work/1640
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-24 23:01 UTC)