Imagine a visionary building at the heart of a self-sustaining community—an architectural marvel that embodies the principles of sustainability, interdependence, and holistic living. This remarkable structure serves as a hub where all essential projects seamlessly come together, forming an interconnected and interdependent system.
At its core, this building incorporates an innovative vertical farming system. Towering gardens thrive within its walls, utilizing advanced hydroponics and vertical farming techniques to produce a wide array of organic fruits, vegetables, and herbs. Natural light floods the space, supplemented by energy-efficient LED lighting that mimics the sun's spectrum. The building's design optimizes air circulation, temperature control, and humidity, creating an ideal environment for abundant and sustainable food production.
Water flows throughout the building, facilitating various essential processes. A state-of-the-art rainwater harvesting system collects and channels rainwater, directing it to purification and filtration systems. These systems provide clean, potable water for the community's consumption, as well as irrigation for the vertical gardens and other water-dependent projects within the building.
Renewable energy is harnessed through a combination of solar panels adorning the building's exterior and wind turbines gracefully integrated into its structure. These energy sources power the building's operations, including the vertical farming systems, lighting, water purification systems, and other electrical needs. Excess energy generated can be stored in efficient battery systems or distributed to other buildings within the community.
Waste management is ingeniously integrated into the building's design. Organic waste from the vertical gardens and community kitchens is processed through innovative anaerobic digestion systems, producing biogas that is used to fuel on-site energy generation. The resulting nutrient-rich compost is then utilized to nourish the gardens, closing the loop of resource utilization and minimizing waste.
Within this multifunctional building, community members have access to educational spaces and workshops where they can learn about sustainable practices, permaculture, renewable energy technologies, and other essential skills. The building serves as a hub for knowledge exchange, fostering a culture of continuous learning and empowerment.
The community's healthcare needs are met through a health and wellness center located within the building. Here, residents have access to comprehensive healthcare services, from preventive care and consultations to alternative therapies and wellness programs. The center incorporates sustainable design elements such as natural lighting, green spaces, and eco-friendly materials, promoting a holistic approach to well-being.
The building also houses a vibrant marketplace that showcases locally produced goods and services. Community members can exchange their products, fostering a resilient local economy and reducing reliance on external sources. The marketplace encourages sustainable practices, with a focus on eco-friendly and fair-trade products.
Through its interconnected systems, this remarkable building serves as a living embodiment of self-sufficiency, sustainability, and community resilience. It fosters a deep sense of interdependence among its occupants, who understand that their individual actions contribute to the overall well-being and sustainability of the community as a whole. This architectural masterpiece inspires and empowers its inhabitants to live in harmony with nature, forging a brighter and more sustainable future.
The structure of this visionary building draws inspiration from Earthship principles, emphasizing sustainable, natural, and recycled materials. It harmoniously combines the concept of an Earthship with innovative design elements, creating a unique and environmentally conscious structure.
The building's walls are constructed using rammed earth or compressed earth blocks, utilizing the surrounding soil and natural resources abundantly available in the area. These materials provide excellent thermal mass properties, helping regulate indoor temperatures by absorbing and releasing heat slowly.
Recycled materials play a significant role in the construction process. Discarded tires, filled with compacted earth, form the foundation walls, providing stability and insulation. These repurposed tires not only reduce waste but also serve as an effective barrier against temperature fluctuations.
Large south-facing windows, a defining feature of Earthship design, allow ample natural light to flood the interior, reducing the need for artificial lighting. These windows are made from double or triple-pane glass, providing insulation while maximizing solar gain in colder climates.
To complete the building envelope, a greenhouse or sunspace is integrated into the structure. This space acts as a thermal buffer, capturing solar heat during the day and releasing it into the building at night. The greenhouse also serves as a nurturing environment for plants, further enhancing the building's self-sustaining capabilities.
The roof of the building is designed to harness rainwater through a carefully planned catchment system. This water is then stored in large cisterns, providing a sustainable water source for the building's various needs, including irrigation and household use. The building's architecture incorporates efficient water filtration and purification systems to ensure a safe and potable water supply.
In line with Earthship principles, the building promotes off-grid living by utilizing renewable energy sources. Photovoltaic solar panels are integrated into the roof or mounted on nearby structures, capturing solar energy to power the building's electrical needs. Wind turbines may also be installed to harness the power of the wind and supplement the energy supply.
Inside the building, natural and non-toxic materials are used for finishes and furnishings. Sustainable and reclaimed wood, bamboo, cork, or recycled materials are employed for flooring, cabinetry, and furniture, promoting a healthy and eco-friendly living environment.
The construction process itself is designed to minimize waste and environmental impact. The building's design allows for efficient use of materials, reducing construction waste. Local and salvaged materials are prioritized, reducing transportation-related carbon emissions. Techniques such as rainwater harvesting during construction can also be implemented to further enhance sustainability.
By combining Earthship principles with innovative design elements, this building exemplifies a sustainable and environmentally conscious approach to construction. It showcases the beauty and versatility of natural and recycled materials while providing a harmonious living space that embodies the principles of self-sufficiency, sustainability, and interdependence with the natural world.
Everybody wants out, they just disagree about the way to the exit because the current system has them confounded.
I don't agree, the MAGA crowd certainly doesn't want out - if anything, they want everyone else to leave. And so by leaving you'd be giving the fascists a clear field
They think the way out of their suffering is to kill the outliers. They still want out. They just suffer for different reasons, born from their narcissistic beliefs.
even if that were true, you still don't present a way to actually solve the problem. Say a charismatic person arose from within your society, and without trying to excersize any actual authority, goes about winning the hearts and minds (and most importantly loyalty) of the others in the society. Not in the way of an actual "leader" persay, but just in a "They're everyone's best friend and confident" kind of way.
Now once they have a following within your society, they start to excersize pressures and influences slowly to change things they way they want. After-all, your society would have to allow changes, or else it would risk stagnating over time, or being unequipped to deal with changing circumstances, then when people get used to they're influence, and are convinced by this charismatic leader that they really have all their best interests at heart, and that they know the best way forward - they makes a power grab.
Literally all of human history says that this is not only possible - but guaranteed - and yes, people are free to leave after that, but he's already won over a huge chunk of the society, and they now want to stay - the rest will basically be forced to start a new group from scratch. Many won't want to leave all their friends and family behind over what are basically just political differences (again - see all of human history for examples), so a large chunk of the people who aren't actually won over by the charismatic leader will also choose to stay. So a relatively tiny minority is now free to choose to either peel off and begin recruiting and striving to find enough members to create a viable collective once again - or (far more likely IMO) they just break up and go their own seperate ways, wondering what went wrong with their dreams of utopia.
Don't get me wrong, it's a noble ambition, but it runs straight into all the same problems that most plans of this sort do - which is that humans are humans. Some of us just can't stand to not try to own everything, and most of us are deeply susceptible to charismatic leaders. Again, that's not my opinion, that's all of human history.
And before you say "Well, we'd have left well before he got so much influence" - are you planning to leave every time someone is good at making friends? Everytime someone convinces their friends over to their own viewpoint? Who gets to decide what constitutes a threat? If the answer is "every individual" than how could the society help but be constantly splitting apart into smaller and smaller pieces as they cut off more and more of the group. And what if the charismatic leader just goes with you? Do your members have the authority to detain them? And what about their friends? Are they expected to just abandon their friend because they're too friendly, and that's suspicious?
Sorry, but I just don't buy it as a viable strategy. Seems like the kind of thing that sounds great on paper, but would collapse within a few years at best
I know you haven't read any of the material on the page because your concerns have been addressed already.
I did in fact read them, I just don't agree that it's actually addressed beyond vague handwaves like "we'll be vigilant"
So you didn't read them.
The short answer is that the project does nothing to prevent the rise of authority. Individual Starlings are all authorities unto themselves and they decide when to cooperate and when to change directions to align with other Starlings who share their vision of what is best for the whole.
I have to say - few things are more frustrating in online discourse then when someone just keeps accusing you of having not done your research instead of answering the question. I've read your posts, and I just re-read them for the sake of being sure I didn't miss anything, and I can say with certainty that having done so, nothing in any of those posts addresses my concern. So I'll ask you, as politely as I can, to please refrain from accusing me of having not read your material. If I misunderstood your material, or missed some key aspect of it, then we can certainly discuss that - but I have read the damn material, so please stop repeating your accusation that i haven't.
Now that that's out of the way, onto the actual subject. All you talk about within your posts are bad actors from outside the organization and how to protect against them, I don't see any stipulations about dealing with bad actors who are themselves deeply rooted within the community itself from usurping the goals of the community,except for the super vague and unhelpful "They remain alert for signs of emerging hierarchies within the organization, as the project aims to prevent oppressive power structure." - which is basically just saying "it won't happen because we won't let it". Your "short answer" isn't anything but happy sounding words. Relying on individuals to resist the temptations of charismatic "leaders" just doesn't work (source: all of human history), it's like saying "our solution to solving world hunger is to just rely on individuals to find the food they need from ethical sources".
Ultimately what you've described just sounds like a avian themed rebranding of anarcho-communism. There have been countless attempts all throughout history of creating the type of society you describe. Without exception every single one has failed, usually quite quickly. It's a noble goal - certainly, but it's inherently fragile as it relies on every single member of it's society being selfless, long-sighted, intelligent (emotionally as way as intellectually), and impervious to populism. Like I say, best of luck to you and your good intentions, but nothing you've presented here makes me think it stands out beyond any of the previous.
Also - related but not totally on-topic advice. If your goal is to build a whole new society, you really need to do a bit of work on your people skills. Every comment you've made in this thread in response to any criticism whatsover is filled with scorn and not a small amount of condescension, even when they're persenting valid criticism from a purely objective standpoint (this example stands out especially as an example of this behavior). You're proposing something radical, you're going to be presented with countless objections and "gripes" about the details of your plan - and not every person who points out a flaw in your plans is going to have a solution. Calling their valid criticism "gripes", or accusing them of "not having read the material" if they disagree with your philosophy will not only not win people to your cause, it will make them want to disagree with you.
Be more open to criticism. Accept that there may be flaws you didn't think of in your plans. Hell, if this community is as non-hierarchical as you claim - you don't actually have any ownership or authority as to how it's run in the first place, so I don't know why you care if people disagree about your specific vision of how it should work. Isn't the "community" supposed to decide? Instead it sounds an awful lot like you telling the community how they're supposed to live. Sounds awfully hierarchical to me.
Whether you don't understand or you didn't read the texts, it looks the same on this end. You're offering critiques that have already been answered and getting mad at me for telling you that you have all of this information already. What makes you think any of these posts are talking about threats that can only come from outside the organization? These guides are for each individual to determine who to make alliances with. Maybe it's the whole "Decentralized" thing that has you confused. Each individual is responsible for their own borders and their own actions. The guides even discuss cooperative and creative thought processes within the individual, so that one isn't fooled by charismatic individuals asking them to give up their power.
Your belief that I need to work on my people skills comes from your misconception of this conversation. I'm not trying to convince you. You have already committed yourself to ignorance. I'm speaking to the third party readers. I'm open to criticism, as soon as you demonstrate any understanding of this project. Until then, I'm not dealing with criticism. I'm parrying your ignorance.
First off, I don't see where you could get "anger" from my prior comment, frustration - absolutely, but I feel I explained my frustration in a calm and polite manner, asking you to simply refrain from it in future - which, I feel I should point out - you did not actually do - which is why I'll be blocking you after I post this comment, because as you claim to do yourself, I prefer to engage only in constructive conversations, and a conversation wherein one party can't refrain from making baseless accusations repeatedly is - by definition - not a constructive one.
Nope - not confused, just unconvinced - but I've already said again and again why I don't buy that the thin and fragile protections you lay out would work in the long run, I don't feel the need to re-iterate them, just re-read my previous comments
Not one single comment of yours in this entire thread has you gracefully accepting criticism. Not one (I checked). Every single time someone has presented you with criticism, you've snapped at them. And (though I admit I didn't look beyond the first page or two) I don't see any comment from you in other threads doing so either.
I think what you mean (based on how you've spoken thus so far to myself and others) is "until you agree with me". Because so far the only people you've dealt with using any civility that I can see are people who already agree with you. Everyone who doesn't already agree with you seems to have been thoroughly offended by and alienated by you.
Like I said previously, thanks to your lack of decorum, I'm going to be blocking you after I post this comment - so you can save yourself the effort of replying, I won't be able to see it. Hell, maybe you won't even be able to see this comment and I'm typing all of this into the wind, I really don't know how blocking on lemmy works - guess we'll find out 🤷
You still haven't criticized the project, only me for not spoon feeding it to you. Any further comment is a waste of our time, since you promised to block me.
I know this won't convince you, but I'm a third party reader who skimmed your posts when they first came up and made a note to go back and read them carefully because they sounded like the Doctrow book Walkaway and I liked that one a lot. Reading these interactions has convinced me not to do so. I think you're going to struggle with outreach if you can't explain aspects of your system without assigning a reading list, and if you accuse everyone who has a concern of acting in bad faith. For what it's worth, I do wish you luck with it.
How would you suggest I respond differently? I have only corrected willful misrepresentations. Interesting that you critique me for "assigning reading lists" when both of your posts have been about a book you want us to read. My reading lists are a few paragraphs on a site where we're actively conversing.
You're proposing a new (ish?) structure of human society, people are going to ask questions about how it will work. You have millions to billions of them to convince, and at this stage, you're the only one doing the outreach. You may feel that their questions are obvious but you'll still need a succinct answer and to get used to having the same conversation over and over again.
And when your system doesn't have a solution yet, as it sounds like from the above conversation regarding knowledgeable bad actors from within the movement, I'd say the best (and most difficult) way is try to treat it like a chance for input and discussion. Like an opportunity for free feedback and review. There have been so many formats of human society, and so many utopian attempts, chances are no one person can build the entire solution on their own, right?
But mostly, don't talk down to them, don't assume bad faith, especially when they're taking the time to carefully articulate their points and to read your ideas.
From where I'm reading, this didn't look like a wilful misrepresentation, it looked like a sincere attempt at dialogue you slapped down.
I don't talk down to people. I talk to people in the exact tone they use when addressing me. When they start complaining that they don't have access to information that's printed right in front of their faces, when they twist clear communications into strawmen, and when they stubbornly cling to their delusions after being corrected; they are acting in bad faith. When they ask sincere questions, accept new information, and engage meaningfully; I do the same. I linked the passages that explained the solutions that the user insisted that I was neglecting and they refused to read them.