Archive for the ‘Community Development’ Category
Friday, March 21st, 2008 |
From a comment by Lon Sarver:
I think you made a flawed assumption in your prefatory paragraph, where you said, “Availability of resources is also based on that of an industrialized nation…”
Many of the factors we have identified as contributing to the erosion of sustainable communities are direct results of, or requirements for, a modern, industrialized economy. The economy of an industrialized nation requires centralized production and distribution, and also a mobile workforce who can move with the openings and closings of plants and stores.
Much of what we have discussed in terms of making real communities involves people rooted in one spot for long periods, and in moving the jobs and stores nearer to the people. All of this will sap the efficiency of the high-production, high-consumption industrial model we use today.
It is possible (and I believe it to be so) that the current levels of industrial production are antithetical to sustainable community and democracy.
Lon hit on a problem that I had missed. There is a possible logical inconsistency between depending on high industrial output at the same time as restructuring communities to work with a much smaller model of industry and economy.
I have actually agonized over this issue for quite some time… hence why it took me until now to really respond to this issue. The conclusion that I have come to is that in the short to mid term the logical inconsistency is very real; however, it may be possible to resolve in the long term.
To deal with this problem in a direct way, the focus would need to shift from communities based on long bonds to more loosely related organizations that could deal with high turnover and change. What came to my mind would be an evolution of professional societies.
If professional societies were given much more of a social function, large numbers of people with similar goals could be easily brought closer together. However, unlike unions these would not focus on employment issues and only work at putting people of similar background (education & employment) in contact very quickly. This would also encourage a much higher rate of information exchange which I proposed as a goal for individual development.
Societies would hopefully be close contact with related industry societies. It would also give people who are moving to a new city a clear way to integrate in their new location.
This is one way to deal with the highly mobile work force we have created. Although it has a very distinct set of limitations. These organization would have to become very numerous in large urban areas before being effective. This model would also not work very well for smaller communities where a very different system (closer to my original idea) would be needed.
This is just part one of addressing some of problems that have become apparent, so to help with refining the ideas here are two questions:
What are other shortfalls of this idea?
What are the steps that could be taken past this to work toward a community model that less resembles union politics and helps bring disparate people together?
Posted in Changing Society, Community Development | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 |
[Found via Gizmodo]
A community called Finca Bellavista is being built in the rain forest of Costa Rica. It is based on having the lowest possible impact and looks very close to an attempt at primitivism.
However, this is not a primitive place! The community will have full WiFi access and will be powered by a combination of solar and possibly hydro power. Right now the village is mostly a concept and includes only one full structure, but plans seem to be moving along very quickly.
Right now my details on this are very sketchy, but they seem to have no lack of funding and some rather high level industry contacts for things such as the WiFi deal they are coordinating.
This sort of community will only ever have a niche following, but idea is worth the weight of their first tree house in gold. Getting back to more natural systems should be a goal for many of us. At the same time they make no pretense about abandoning technology. My own ideas rely heavily on technology and this is proof of concept that nature and technology are not incompatible.
Posted in Community Development, International Issues | 4 Comments »
Wednesday, March 12th, 2008 |
To create such communities like you’re describing, wouldn’t you have to directly influence “The Man?” Personally, I don’t have the resources or the influence to ensure that my community is re-zoned, etc.
Comment from Myku in response to The Sidestep
Most of my ideas for building sustainable communities do rely on avoiding taking the powers that be head on. I still stand by that belief, but this question certainly bring up the question of how to do that.
My personal vision looks at targeting communities that are as close to the ideal situation as possible. I have some ideas of what to do after that point, but there are large holes in them.
The idea would be to either attract investment capital to the area for alternative business models that are built on small work group dynamics. In many ways this is the model Gore created and uses (teams of 150 people at max on a product or line). This, of course, works much better if there happens to be a local industry that is easily marketable… unfortunately most small communities are what they are because they lack these things.
However when working in a small community, it does tend to be rather easy to get involved in local politics and help direct change in a positive way. So even if you are not attracting investors you can work with local leaders in both politics and business to work with more of the community and try new things. Luckily there are many places where business leaders are happy to benefit their town. They know the people there and already know what they do to help the community grow will also directly benefit the business in the long run.
By working with this very small systems they do start to attract attention of bigger fish who do have much more influence that many of us lower on the ladder lack.
For the those brave enough to take then man head on though, there is plenty of inspiration available. Majora Carter took on New York and won. Her passion is to “Green the Ghetto” and is actively pursuing that project through her organization Sustainable South Bronx. It took aggressive pursuit of grant money, but it this shows that a grass roots movement can begin the process of sustainable redevelopment even against the biggest odds and the most entrenched systems.
So even without having a great deal of pull you can do more than just create a dent in the wall if you have the passion to pursue sustainable change.
So what are your ideas? Do you think making broader economic change in a small community or making civic changes in a large city is a better path to sustainable success?
Posted in Community Development | 1 Comment »
Saturday, January 26th, 2008 |
In the primary article for the Community in Sustainable Democracy, it came up in comments that there are two key issues. The first is that opposing the corporate structure and world based around it is extremely difficult; the second, is that there are certain parts of society/culture that you cannot sidestep around to achieve goals. What I had in mind in proposing a ’sidestep’ though may help to answer at least the most basic parts of these problems.
The approach that I envision - whether ultimately practical or not - is to sidestep the first problem in order to attack the second.
Convincing the corporate and governments worlds that radical community change is necessary to promote the well being of society and democracy would be all but impossible. They have become ingrained in ways of thinking about what is right and wrong that work wonders for their own profit and popularity bottom lines. Thus any argument to the contrary, especially those proposing radical change, are not just ignored but actively fought. The common result of fighting the man is failure under the weight of the budget that can be thrown at you.
Therefore, I believe that it is that system or direct argumentation to create radical change that must be sidestepped. The key is not to follow in the paths of many other alternative communities that have come before. Of the many alternative or sustainable lifestyle communities that have come, it seems that many of these successful ones have become isolated. They accomplished the goal for a small number of people. This is a noble and worthy task, but I believe it should be taken farther.
The goal is to create example communities. There are hundreds of small and very open minded communities in our nation. Using one or more of these to conduct radical change at first the social and then community level is the path most likely to succeed. By re-engineering small communities to be models of both social connectedness and productivity they should be able to gain mass appeal while remaining inside the consumer driven world.
Because I am reacting to comments for this article, I will keep things short. My ideas on this matter are many, but they aren’t all well planned out or connected. This should, though, give something to keep thinking about. And hopefully spur you on to criticize the flaws in these ideas so that they can be improved.
So now I give the soapbox to you! Tell me why this very brief idea could fail and in what ways it could.
Posted in Community Development | 7 Comments »
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 |
This is one of 3 articles to help introduce and explain the basic ideas and tenets of Sustainable Democracy. The Pillars follow a progression from smallest to largest. From the individual, to the community, to the society. This article will focus on the role of the community and small scale models that might be applicable to society. Availability of resources is also based on that of an industrialized nation, the lack or absence of basic needs in developing or third world nations will be discussed in the article on society.
The Community in Sustainable Democracy
How we build communities is extremely important. Whereas an individual can easily change and adapt over time, communities of all but the smallest sizes quickly become very rigid. It is this inflexibility that may be the greatest cause of problems and social breakdown in our modern world.
Unfortunately we evolve much slower than our social context has. The basis of large cities has been at the behest of industrial and commercial interests that occurred during times when moguls couldn’t have cared less for the effect on workers. This is the reason for surges in urban renewal projects. The cities we have built are not the sorts of places that build any measure of community. They isolate people.. A sustainable democratic community needs to be one that invites the individual and integrates that person fluidly. They are open communities that encourage interpersonal connections.
Think of it this way. You probably have a homeowners association, perhaps a neighborhood watch, there may be a local church or activity group you are a part of. However, none of these groups are connected, nor to they work with each other in many cases. New community structures need to take care of all of these functions and more.
A true community is made of connections between individuals. The fact that you are in close proximity to others means almost nothing if you never connect with them, a neighborhood of strangers is exactly that, and no labels, gates and walls, or promotional pamphlets will make it a community.
It is an odd but understandable fact that online communities are doing much better than local communities at this time. As was stated in the first pillar on the individual; people should be working to invent and create rather then needlessly toil. Communities should be building connections, and integrating individuals to enhance and build the local environment to be better.
Consider: Some of the most productive and innovative companies work in environments that are clean, streamlined, and open to encourage team members to continually interact. The people who work there are happy, they work harder, they are often more innovative, and they actually still spend less time pretending to be busy working and more time actually socializing.
What would happen if your local area were modified like this?
Do you see any problems with a community like this?
All ideas here and insights from comments will be discussed in much more detail focused articles.
Posted in Community Development, sustainable democracy | 7 Comments »
