Is Industrialization the Downfall?
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?
