What If...

[0doc]

If I created a small village in the countryside for people like us, in a lush meadow surrounded by wilderness, but only 20 minutes from a good sized town; and I built a nice cozy little home to each village resident's own personal specifications and liking, and every night, we gathered round a small bonfire for a potluck dinner all the village was invited to, but no one obligated to join in; we just chose to live amongst thoughtful, sensitive folks, young and old, and share our living story of Life together, would you ever consider becoming part of our community?

 

[Disaffected]

[video=youtube]

 

[mickey]

I'd definitely join in, but might not make it to too many dinners.

 

[quintus 2]

Would you mind to build your village close to the mediterranean, please? That would be great
(I'm quite good in cooking...)

 

[hugswithtrees]

Yeah! Already working on it, I've been studying permaculture and obsessing over Earthships for years
I'd like to have my own micro-farm, grow my own food, try to be mostly self-sufficient. One day...

 

[quintus 2]

Yeah! Already working on it, I've been studying permaculture and obsessing over Earthships for years
I'd like to have my own micro-farm, grow my own food, try to be mostly self-sufficient. One day...

That's what I'm doing. Well- did until now, since my disease takes over. The land is there- just come over.
There's even a vinyard. Could you ask for more?

 

[Sometimes]

I'm so totally there. I can build, fix or maintain things. That what I do.

 

[quintus 2]

Come over and bring the others with you. The greenhouse needs to be fixed. And not only that

 

[0doc]

I love all this stuff too. Micro-hydro power, Solar stills, Rapid-growth sustainable woodstove fuel, Vertical farming, Aquaponics (not to be confused with hydroponics). I've been thinking that having a greenhouse on the rooftop of the home, harnessing heat from the home's chimney in Winter, with an aquaponics system could possibly facilitate efficient year-round harvests.

I don't think most of us really want to be alone, but we just don't want to have to compete constantly with others who feel a relentless need to prove themselves to the world, and because that's so prevalent in modern culture, folks like us end up isolating ourselves to some degree just to avoid feeling unnecessarily drained by others' overly competitive attitudes.

 

[quintus 2]

I love all this stuff too. Micro-hydro power, Solar stills, Rapid-growth sustainable woodstove fuel, Vertical farming, Aquaponics (not to be confused with hydroponics). I've been thinking that having a greenhouse on the rooftop of the home, harnessing heat from the home's chimney in Winter, with an aquaponics system could possibly facilitate efficient year-round harvests.

I don't think most of us really want to be alone, but we just don't want to have to compete constantly with others who feel a relentless need to prove themselves to the world, and because that's so prevalent in modern culture, folks like us end up isolating ourselves to some degree just to avoid feeling unnecessarily drained by others' overly competitive attitudes.

Competitive attitude is working/acting against not wit

 

[quintus 2]

I love all this stuff too. Micro-hydro power, Solar stills, Rapid-growth sustainable woodstove fuel, Vertical farming, Aquaponics (not to be confused with hydroponics). I've been thinking that having a greenhouse on the rooftop of the home, harnessing heat from the home's chimney in Winter, with an aquaponics system could possibly facilitate efficient year-round harvests.

I don't think most of us really want to be alone, but we just don't want to have to compete constantly with others who feel a relentless need to prove themselves to the world, and because that's so prevalent in modern culture, folks like us end up isolating ourselves to some degree just to avoid feeling unnecessarily drained by others' overly competitive attitudes.

Competitive attitude is working/acting against not with others. I totally agree. Vain and draining, as you pût it. Ridiculous even. Yes, decidedly draining. Higher, faster, bigger...bull

 

[Despicable Me]

'What if...' indeed.

So who pays for everything in this community?
Who owns the land, pays the taxes? Who is paying for the homes, the electricity, the water, the internet, the garbage, etc.
Where does everyone get a job? What if someone can't find a job in the town nearby? Do they get kicked out of your community?
What happens if someone gets sick or ill? Who pays for all of their medical bills?

Even if this community goes back to primitive society, creating everything they need to survive, there is still a unique dependence on external society. Most people aren't happy just giving up modern life just to do long, hard manual labor for the rest of their lives, nor will they be happy to just let people die when there is medicine to heal them. And what if there is a natural disaster and all the year's crops are ruined? Then what?
No one with tons and tons of money has actually ever started such a community to essentially just give it all away. And if they did, who would they let in and who would they deny? Most people with that kind of money are a little too greedy to want to spend it on others just like that, otherwise they wouldn't be rich in the first place. And even if they were like that, how could they possibly create such a community that just gives everything away freely without rejecting some people? Why would they put themselves in that position, if they truly cared about others?

So, just curious, but what is the actual point of this topic? Even if you theoretically had all the money in the world, creating a little community like this wouldn't work unless you changed the larger society that surrounds it. And, as sad as this is, there are plenty of people who don't want that to happen and will do anything they can to stop you.

 

[TheRealCallie]

So, just curious, but what is the actual point of this topic? Even if you theoretically had all the money in the world, creating a little community like this wouldn't work unless you changed the larger society that surrounds it. And, as sad as this is, there are plenty of people who don't want that to happen and will do anything they can to stop you.

Um, the point is that there would be a place for like minded people away from everyday civilization that doesn't "understand" us. It's hypothetical. Lots of people think about this kind of thing. Maybe not extreme like a big old community, but very similar.

Would it honestly work if it actually happens. Who knows, but so what. It's nice for some to dream about it occasionally.

 

[0doc]

'What if...' indeed.

So who pays for everything in this community?
Who owns the land, pays the taxes? Who is paying for the homes, the electricity, the water, the internet, the garbage, etc.
Where does everyone get a job? What if someone can't find a job in the town nearby? Do they get kicked out of your community?
What happens if someone gets sick or ill? Who pays for all of their medical bills?
[...]
So, just curious, but what is the actual point of this topic? Even if you theoretically had all the money in the world, creating a little community like this wouldn't work unless you changed the larger society that surrounds it. And, as sad as this is, there are plenty of people who don't want that to happen and will do anything they can to stop you.

My main interest in asking the question is to look at whether the often artificial comforts that modern consumerism affords is worth the loneliness that such a socially competitive lifestyle inevitably leads to. I for one, would love to live much more simply in order to have the opportunity to share my life with others who enjoy cooperating and supporting one another more than they enjoy outdoing each other.

When focusing all Life around money, it's important to look at what money actually stands for. Some friends of mine started a group years ago called the Bio-regional Economics Network. Its intent was to minimize the tremendous drain that corporate monopolies impose on the average person's daily life. One of the things they implemented to alleviate this issue was a new currency that would be used to encourage trade to stay local, as only local community members would recognize/honor this currency as having value. On each of the notes was printed 'In Each Other We Trust', to remind us all that's what gives money value: believing in, and yes, leaning on each other. Otherwise it's just useless paper. All the legal aspects of currency are irrelevant if the actual people don't see value in that currency. They simply agree to willingly offer goods and services in exchange for the notes. If you have invested your life into a huge pile of money, you're left hoping and trusting that others will do things for you in trade for it.

Sustainable and self-reliant community efforts are intended to remind us that this is the reality. Essentially, they recognize that the corporate mega-giants who run things are 'parasitic' in nature, as they contribute little to nothing to society, yet take for themselves more than everyone else combined.

People make a mistake in assuming things are set up the way they are simply because we learned that's what works best. The fact is, much of the current structure of society is the way it is, merely because a handful of individuals are more obsessed with domination and exploitation than the greater population is obsessed with stopping them.

My interest though revolves more around: 'Are we so used to feeling alone and misunderstood that we cling to circumstances that keep us that way? Or are we willing to recognize that extroverted personality types have, over generations, brainwashed introverts to believe that being introverted by nature is a 'defect' or 'disorder', so that our plight in Life amounts to struggling to find a way to reconstruct our personality chemistry to better conform to extrovert nature?'

History has repeatedly shown that many of the most revolutionary improvements in quality of life for the average person have been due solely to the contributions of introverted personality types. Aside from this, introverts are better at many jobs and roles in society.

This is an overly simplistic view of sociology, but it does reveal some crippling biases in the way we currently operate as a "civilized" people.

Learn about Rojava. They're the only people sending an organized front of foot soldiers to fight ISIS right now. Yet these people are very micro-governed and their economy is locally sustained. They are not paying any taxes to any government, nor ruled over by any giant corporate industries. They sustain on farming and other goods-producing co-ops. They rely on their immediate neighbors, and enjoy doing what they can for their neighborhoods.

We've been trained to believe human nature is predominantly criminal minded. I'm realizing that's simply untrue. But the more we all believe that's what we are, the more it becomes true in our respective cultures. My experience in life has shown that people do enjoy helping each other out and working toward a common cause, but fear of being exploited and ending up without what they themselves need, is preventing them from reaching out to others in need. The question is if the 'needy' are really taking more from us, or if it's the 'greedy' placing most of the burden on our economic prosperity.


Take a look at the American Amish. Check out how much they struggle with loneliness and depression. Research their overall physical health, compared to the average American.

I personally know people living together on their own farm, working toward self-reliance more and more. They're selling organic milk from the cows they raise, in exchange for the cash they need to operate. They're carefully controlling breeding so the cows don't over-populate. They don't have a need to sell any of the cows for slaughter. Not even the bulls. They're growing as much of their own plant-based foods as possible, given the local climate restrictions. Granted, they can't open their doors to anyone and everyone to come live there, but interestingly, the way they can decide who joins and who doesn't is usually just by seeing who is willing and able to do the physical and mental work needed to maintain such a lifestyle. Most Westerners don't want to have to grind their own wheat, plow and weed their fields by hand, milk their own cows, make their own butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc. And many aren't willing to live without their chemical addictions, such as smoking, drinking, etc. I personally enjoy the convenience of quick and easy pre-prepared foods, and ample electricity (they're on Solar), but I'd be more than willing to sacrifice those little conveniences to have closer connections and bonds with like-minded souls.

My question is have we decided that closeness is too 'inconvenient', and that convenience is worth the pains of loneliness?

---

Um, the point is that there would be a place for like minded people away from everyday civilization that doesn't "understand" us. It's hypothetical. Lots of people think about this kind of thing. Maybe not extreme like a big old community, but very similar.

Would it honestly work if it actually happens. Who knows, but so what. It's nice for some to dream about it occasionally.

Yep, and such dreaming doesn't have to be in vain.

 

[Despicable Me]

My main interest in asking the question is to look at whether the often artificial comforts that modern consumerism affords is worth the loneliness that such a socially competitive lifestyle inevitably leads to. I for one, would love to live much more simply in order to have the opportunity to share my life with others who enjoy cooperating and supporting one another more than they enjoy outdoing each other.

See, I knew there was a more interesting aspect to this topic than just some theoretical situation.

Though I'm not sure I really agree with the conclusion you're making here. I'm not sure exactly what you're going for, but to me it seems like you're assuming that 'artificial comforts' are what is forcing us apart and making everyone lonely, rather than the "socially competitive lifestyle" itself.

You also seem to draw some interesting lines to how money and big businesses work in society, and their part on effecting loneliness, but then you still seem to make this conclusion that it's the fault of our loneliness and our possessions, and not simply just the fault of the way society itself is structured.

Most particularly I see this here:

People make a mistake in assuming things are set up the way they are simply because we learned that's what works best. The fact is, much of the current structure of society is the way it is, merely because a handful of individuals are more obsessed with domination and exploitation than the greater population is obsessed with stopping them.

This is absolutely true.
But then you go on to say this immediately afterward:

My interest though revolves more around: 'Are we so used to feeling alone and misunderstood that we cling to circumstances that keep us that way? Or are we willing to recognize that extroverted personality types have, over generations, brainwashed introverts to believe that being introverted by nature is a 'defect' or 'disorder', so that our plight in Life amounts to struggling to find a way to reconstruct our personality chemistry to better conform to extrovert nature?'

My question here is 'Why' are you more interested in whether loneliness is driving our desire to maintain this society or whether there is some sort of extrovert-introvert (a formulation by Carl Jung)
What leads you here as opposed to simply just looking at society and acknowledging that there are certain types of people who have structured this society a certain way (and therefore created a "socially competitive lifestyle") which enforce society into repressing their desires, which in effect will produce the byproducts of loneliness and misunderstanding, as well as the very conceptions of introversion and extroversion?

Because, to me, everything you seem focused on is merely this byproduct. A set of regulations which produce somewhat intended effects, but the effects themselves are not necessarily directly derived from the regulations, but as byproducts of those regulations.

Like if we are producing milk for our ultimate aim of gaining money, and a byproduct of our milk production is manure. Despite being a byproduct, we can use this manure to create fertilizer which also benefits our ultimate goal: money.

This is, after all, how society currently works.'The elite', whom control all power within society, will structure society to ensure that they keep power to themselves and that means to maintain things as they currently are, and to repress anyone who disagrees. In a society they have optimized for their own benefits will therefore create or use the byproducts of society to ensure their goals are ultimately met.

In simplest terms, 'the elite' ensure that this "socially competitive lifestyle" exists because it benefits them, in every way possible. It is therefore that structure itself which causes both of the effects that you now see produced.

Personally, my own interests have always been asking the question "How do we change it?".

This is an overly simplistic view of sociology, but it does reveal some crippling biases in the way we currently operate as a "civilized" people.

I've always had fun at the expense of that word..... "civilized".
How "civilized" is our society, really?

Is it "civilized" to have chased the native people from their homelands, so that we could take and exploit their lands for our own selfish gains? And to later call this the "land of freedom"?
Is it "civilized" to allow the poor to go hungry?
Is it "civilized" to allow people to not have jobs and be unable to afford food and homes?
Is it "civilized" to even have a system that prevents anyone from having homes, food, and clean drinking water?
Is it "civilized" to spend billions of dollars on the military, whose only real goal is to murder others who disagree with the way things are?

If this world is "civilized" then I do not know what "civilized" means.
And I see that, having put this word in quotes yourself, that you probably agree with me on this aspect.

We've been trained to believe human nature is predominantly criminal minded. I'm realizing that's simply untrue. But the more we all believe that's what we are, the more it becomes true in our respective cultures. My experience in life has shown that people do enjoy helping each other out and working toward a common cause, but fear of being exploited and ending up without what they themselves need, is preventing them from reaching out to others in need. The question is if the 'needy' are really taking more from us, or if it's the 'greedy' placing most of the burden on our economic prosperity.

I've never really seen it as a question of whether human nature was "criminal minded", nor whether the "needy" are taking anything from the rest of us.
For me these things have long since been 'The Great Lies of Society'. The perpetual myths that are spun and spun so as to keep and maintain this fallacious order we see around us. To make sure that nothing ever changes.
The older I get, and the more things I experience, the more and more I see the obvious truth in this fact, and the absolutely hideous nature of the real world, the world that they try to screen off from everyone.

No, the poor aren't taking anything from us. We are taking it from them.
And no, there is no such thing as some kind of innate "human nature" that somehow explains all greed, all apathy, and all uncaring people. Human beings are inherently social-creatures. We are defined, by nature, to our ability to socialize and create products from our ability to work together, to plan ahead, and to think and understand our surroundings.
Yet some of these things, our natural abilities, are stripped away from us by the way things work.

There is a reason why society fails to answer the difficult questions. Why so many people are poor. Why it's so difficult to get out of poverty. Why everyone hates going to work. Why these luxuries make us compacent. Why so many people are thrown to the bottom of the barrel and can't ever seem to figure their way out.

Take a look at the American Amish. Check out how much they struggle with loneliness and depression. Research their overall physical health, compared to the average American.

I'm actually quite familiar with 'the American Amish'. I've even met some of them. I know how they live and how they work, and I've actually seen it for myself.
They're an interesting group, and I think perhaps maybe you're implying a generalization about them that is not quite true. They still have many social problems. They're interesting not because they are an exception, but the ways in which they have been an exception.
They regularly lose people to larger society. And they do feel loneliness, and massive alienation. Sometimes from their own community, but more importantly they always feel alienated from the rest of the world.

And to some extent, most of these communities still largely participate in the whole 'rat race', but just in a different way. Many of them have small shops, which they'll sell produced goods, or goods which are traded to them, for US currency, for money. So that they can purchase things for their community, from the larger society. Big business will regularly trade with them, on an individual level. Obviously not through phone calls or anything, but it's still monetary trade.

And despite the belief they use 'no technology' and 'live in the 1800s', they do use technology and various things. They'll still use things like calculators and cash registers. They aren't typically 'modern' ones, but some of them even run on electricity.

It's really all very interesting how they interact with each other, and how they interact with the rest of the world. But one thing is for sure, they are not completely secluded, nor are every one of them happy. Many of them still feel loneliness, but a loneliness that is more satisfied by the communities that they know and grew up in than the troublesome modern world which they don't understand and have never been taught about.
And more noticeably, if you don't believe the same things that they do - you're going to be exiled. You're going to not just be an outcast of your own society, but every other society in the world. That's a jarring thing, and maybe it's even better if the Amish didn't even exist at all, that they were all fully integrated into society. But that, too, would solve nothing.

Once upon a time I thought about living a life like that myself, going to join them. But I know it doesn't really solve anything.

I personally know people living together on their own farm, working toward self-reliance more and more. [...] I personally enjoy the convenience of quick and easy pre-prepared foods, and ample electricity (they're on Solar), but I'd be more than willing to sacrifice those little conveniences to have closer connections and bonds with like-minded souls.

While I understand this concept, and it does work for some people, it really doesn't solve anything or give us any answers.
All so-called "self-reliant" communities still require contact from the outside world. They still need each other, because they are still part of one larger society. They can try to do things themselves, but ultimately any form of disaster spells their end.

Just look at the Rojava you mentioned. So maybe they have some larger nations on their side in this war, against ISIL, but what happens if the next war they have a huge nation against them? Do you think they'll survive? When you're a community that openly participates in politics and military, you're going to eventually get hurt. There are people in the world who don't want you to do that, and eventually they will stop you. You are the threat to their power. It is why wars have been raging on since long before history was written, why nations, even modern ones, cannot actually solve conflicts peacefully. Why no peace, anywhere, can be permanent in such a society, in such a world.

My question is have we decided that closeness is too 'inconvenient', and that convenience is worth the pains of loneliness?

My question is, and always has been: Why can't we just have both?

Feel free to explain, if you think you've got an answer for me.

Anyway, sorry for the lengthy response full of controversial stuff. I'm rather passionate about this topic and I've studied it quite a bit. It's an interesting world out there, but few people ever really seem to actually notice it much.

 

[mickey]

It looks like it's time for me to get on my soapbox--which I do less often than the moon turns blue, for lack of people to talk to. My ideas are born and grow up in the seclusion of one isolated mind and likely suffer from that.

The necessities of the universe (colloquially but loadedly called "the laws of nature") are in themselves defective and perverse. The inevitability of entropy, the scalar valuation of force, the communitization of all separate things down to the level of the black hole (which is the ultimate nightmare community of oppression), and other things ensure that life on Earth will also be perverse and wrongful in its essence, and so by extension is the human world.

The eukaryote arose when some prokaryote developed a viral infection, with the virus matter inside it becoming a nucleus and organelles. Although single-celled life is by FAR more numerous on earth than multicelled life, even that single-celled life was mostly born of violation, bloodshed and oppression. Mammals are vast communities of cells that have been tyrannized into overspecialization to the point that most wouldn't survive for more than a few minutes if separated from the entire body. The human species succeeded through slyness, deception, subterfuge and operation from concealment, which many idiots still believe are what makes a person "smart." Philosophy is based on generalization, which amounts to bigotry. We deal with new situations by imposing our preconceptions on them, because our brains are structured that way, and so is the bulk of our knowledge and learning tools.

On a social level, there is a zero-sum game between effectiveness and reflection. Effectiveness is needed in order to get things done. Reflection is needed to decide what SHOULD get done. Those two things cannot add up to more than 100% (although they often add up to far less in specific people), so that the more you have of one the less you have of the other. The most effective people are those with ZERO reflection, able to accomplish nearly anything they try but completely useless at choosing wisely what they try to do. And in the 21st century they have a sneering disdain for reflective people because of those people's ineffectiveness, and deny reflective people any opportunity to contribute to society. This is the way things must structurally be among people. Nothing can be done about it except to replace us with a different species that is built according to the necessities of a different universe that has different necessities--which species would not be able to survive very long in this universe.

How can anyone expect anything good when reality itself is inherently perverse and broken? Surprisingly, good things do happen from time to time, on a very local scale and in isolation. It is for those rare good things that the world's billions have endlessly suffered and continue to do so. And no, those with great influence or power don't have any larger a share of the good things than the most downtrodden among us. Their lives are suffering just as much as everyone else's is.

Sorry that what started as an optimistic and hopeful thread has turned to this, but you can blame entropy.

 

[Despicable Me]

-stuff-

Could not disagree with you more, mickey. You seem to be blaming the whole universe for human-problems. That seems rather far-fetched to me. How do you derive that conclusion?
Not just that, but you seem to believe that absolutely everyone is miserable almost all of the time, except for a few 'rare' moments. Again I don't understand where that comes from.
And worse of all, you suggest that there aren't some people taking more resources for themselves? Even if they are just as miserable as everyone else, you obviously can't deny that they aren't still taking more than everyone else on some levels. How could you possibly come to this conclusion?

I guess I just don't get it. Sorry.

Sorry that what started as an optimistic and hopeful thread has turned to this, but you can blame entropy.

It isn't my topic, and perhaps it's somewhat my fault for it becoming derailed from its intended purpose, but I don't think you should worry. You, particularly, have a very pessimistic outlook on life but I'm sure you have your reasons for that, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Sometimes optimism needs a bit of pessimism to level itself out. Which is exactly why I think you could use some optimism yourself, but I digress.

Anyway, finding out the reason for the way things are is all part of how to find a solution, so it's all good. If we're not all here to discuss our thoughts and ideas and to be heard in a world that generally doesn't like to listen, then what are we here for?

 

[Raven22]

Mickey wrote: It looks like it's time for me to get on my soapbox--which I do less often than the moon turns blue, for lack of people to talk to. My ideas are born and grow up in the seclusion of one isolated mind and likely suffer from that.The necessities of the universe (colloquially but loadedly called "the laws of nature") are in themselves defective and perverse. The inevitability of entropy, the scalar valuation of force, the communitization of all separate things down to the level of the black hole (which is the ultimate nightmare community of oppression), and other things ensure that life on Earth will also be perverse and wrongful in its essence, and so by extension is the human world.The eukaryote arose when some prokaryote developed a viral infection, with the virus matter inside it becoming a nucleus and organelles. Although single-celled life is by FAR more numerous on earth than multicelled life, even that single-celled life was mostly born of violation, bloodshed and oppression. Mammals are vast communities of cells that have been tyrannized into overspecialization to the point that most wouldn't survive for more than a few minutes if separated from the entire body. The human species succeeded through slyness, deception, subterfuge and operation from concealment, which many idiots still believe are what makes a person "smart." Philosophy is based on generalization, which amounts to bigotry. We deal with new situations by imposing our preconceptions on them, because our brains are structured that way, and so is the bulk of our knowledge and learning tools.On a social level, there is a zero-sum game between effectiveness and reflection. Effectiveness is needed in order to get things done. Reflection is needed to decide what SHOULD get done. Those two things cannot add up to more than 100% (although they often add up to far less in specific people), so that the more you have of one the less you have of the other. The most effective people are those with ZERO reflection, able to accomplish nearly anything they try but completely useless at choosing wisely what they try to do. And in the 21st century they have a sneering disdain for reflective people because of those people's ineffectiveness, and deny reflective people any opportunity to contribute to society. This is the way things must structurally be among people. Nothing can be done about it except to replace us with a different species that is built according to the necessities of a different universe that has different necessities--which species would not be able to survive very long in this universe.How can anyone expect anything good when reality itself is inherently perverse and broken? Surprisingly, good things do happen from time to time, on a very local scale and in isolation. It is for those rare good things that the world's billions have endlessly suffered and continue to do so. And no, those with great influence or power don't have any larger a share of the good things than the most downtrodden among us. Their lives are suffering just as much as everyone else's is.


****Yawn**** Ho hum, sorry,I must fallen asleep, somwhere between It's looks..........and ........like

 

[Despicable Me]

****Yawn**** Ho hum, sorry,I must fallen asleep, somwhere between It's looks..........and ........like

That doesn't seem very respectful... Am I reading this right?

 

[quintus 2]

The answers to a very simple question on this thread are tremendously funny. Lots and lots of words. And lots again. My o my- people on a mission. Thé op asked a very simple, dreamlike question. He did not post an add. And to be frank : it was a dream like question and not meant to provoke a socio-economical-politico-fundamental-anti/pro- capitalistic/socialist study of pseudo- intellectual blabla. Well, at least I did not read all this in thé op's thread. Gosh...some are really on a mission hère, aren't they?