JackReed?, Santa Barbara
Worum gehts: Ein Dorf als Modell für die Welt - als Modell für eine Welt der Dörfer. (siehe auch http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC01/Clark.htm). Kritik an den Ökodörfern und intentionalen Gemeinschaften dass sie sich der Größe der Aufgabe nicht bewusst sind. Gleitet aber dann selber sehr stark in ein bestimmtes, tiefes Gemeinschaftsmodell ab.
"Currently we live in what can best be described as an everyone-for-themselves world. That may look like every country for themselves or every family or every whatever grouping, but it all boils down to the everyone-for- themselves model. We do not have a “what would work for all of us” mentality and approach to life."
"The way we live together and relate together in Community is the basic building block that is needed to transform the planet. If we design Communities based on a Highest Good For Everyone model, we can live very, very abundant lifestyles that would appeal to almost everyone while simultaneously restoring our environment."
" Only 20 percent, and probably less, of the current jobs are essential! The other 80 percent plus are either there to protect and perpetuate our everyone-for-themselves economic caste system or they are what I call “nonsense jobs” which are created solely for the sake of providing a person or some people with money to survive in the current system. Falling into that category are an incredible number of products that are created, again, solely for peoples’ incomes in our non-cooperative economic model. Just drive down any city street and see how many establishments wouldn’t have to be there if the idea was for the system to really work for everyone."
"Not providing services and a good living environment for all life because there is “not enough money” is an illusion based on our lack of cooperation and creativity. "
"Development was not something that happens with your resources, your abilities, the abilities of a society, an organism, a person; development becomes that for which you have to take loans and credits, and get indebted; and get enslaved—just the opposite of what development should really be. (Vandana Shiva) ."
"We can’t just ask Third World countries to stop cutting down their forests because the issue must be tied into improving the quality of their lives. We can’t have people living in poverty trying to support a family because they will take from the environment what they have to in order just to survive. at they have to in order just to survive.
"So where do we start? There are so many imbalances, so many things that need to be corrected, and so many just causes that trying to do something about each little area of interest gets to be an overwhelming task. Save the dolphins, the whales, recycle, end political corruption, save the rain forests, do something about crime, reduce our drug use, eliminate domestic violence, etc., etc., etc. So much to do, and so little time left for the planet."
Because most of the people in the world would have no idea what it would look like if we chose to live together for The Highest Good Of All, the first step would be to create a MODEL COMMUNITY, based on the concept of making life work for all of us, to show the world how life could be very, very different. While “intentional” egalitarian communities are certainly not a new idea, with many small ones currently existing, none have been created with the intention and on the scale that is needed to arouse worldwide interest. We need to see an approach that not only could heal the planet but will also show a different way of living with a daily quality of life that would be more uplifting for almost anyone living on the planet.
Cities: We pushed out nature. We pushed out fresh food grown on the best farmland. We tied up our lives in traveling and depersonalization to the point that many of us now get minimal exercise (we are now a nation of overweight and obese people largely because of this factor), minimal playtime, and, most importantly, minimal quality time spent with good friends and family.
Antithese: "The Community produces all its own clean energy and, through cooperation and the use of positive technology, is as nonpolluting and sustainable as possible. Nature flourishes on hundreds of beautiful acres, and most of the organic food is grown through advanced techniques and nonobtrusive, edible landscaping. Since vehicles are parked at the outskirts of the community, and pavement is used minimally, it’s a wonderful place to play outdoors or go for a walk and touch the land.
Cooperative communities have existed for years, but none based on the Highest Good For All model on the scale that would have more universal appeal such that people not living there would say, “Yeah, this Community’s lifestyle is much better than my own. I’d like to live there!” Most are too small to have the amenities and the diversity that would appeal to people used to certain opportunities of urban living.
- eingebauter "Fun Factor" (p.114) "Most people now have grown up thinking that fun is having control over others, being self-indulging, being greedy, being lustful, and competing with and having enjoyment at the expense of others."
"We consider issues such as how to incorporate the latest technology and how to live in harmony with nature to be very important. However, our primary concern is how we interact and relate with one another and how we make decisions that include and involve everyone. Without this we would be missing the essence of what a Community really can be—a loving and joyful support group for all its residents." (p.116)
"Not only is it important that we ask questions about how we live together, but it’s important to ask the right questions. Any community is only going to be as good as the fundamental questions it asks and is willing to take on." (p.117)
" If we were to ask “How do we reach consensus?” in all our decision-making, the question is so expansive and all encompassing that we would eventually come up with a decision-making system that includes The Highest Good For All."
With people tying up so many resources in the accumulation and protection of possessions, much of the planet’s wealth goes unused. (122)
"I know of one family of four that was living in a cabin in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains on less than $10,000 a year. The husband then got a job in the San Francisco Bay area that paid $200,000 a year. However, with all that this income could buy, the family came to the realization that the quality of their lives and their abundance was far greater when they were living in their cabin."
"If we can redefine wealth as use and access rather than as possessions, then we can really cut down on our consumerism while at the same time have" (119)
"At first, because our planning group for the Community Planet Foundation’s model was sharing oriented, we considered what would happen if we all shared equally. We felt that we, the planning group, could all do it and, through sharing resources, could all enjoy a very abundant lifestyle. However, we also knew that some people might be turned off to this—people who, at least at first, might individually want more than others. As we always worked with design situations where everyone can win, we came up with a unique solution."
- Because we see ourselves as one family, we decided that, “The land, structures, and communally-used or provided resources belong to and are the responsibility of all residents.”
- Our model Highest Good Community would provide basic human needs to all residents. These benefits include food, shelter, health needs, recreational and creative equipment and supplies, communication systems, educational opportunities, and transportation. However, if a person chose to work outside the Community and the person earned more than the average cost per resident cost of living, the resident would only be obligated to contribute ten percent of that excess amount to the Community.
The first thing we’d do is an environmental impact study in order to see how we can best protect and restore nature, what the population carrying capacity of the land is, where it’s best to build and to grow food, etc. While the minimum amount of land needed would depend on each location, I would foresee at least 1,000 acres for a Community of up to 500 people. While some of you may think that’s a lot, keep in mind that we don’t have to live as packed in as we now do, especially as we start growing food within the Communities and as we begin to restore nature.
We are creating a Community that is in harmony and balance with nature. In designing a Community as a whole, we can plan for its growth and limit its size to that which the area can naturally support.
The Community would be a living demonstration of a future that is not grim, foreboding, and poverty stricken, but rather a future that is both sustainable and very desir- able. Built with local, non-polluting building materials, the Community would also be a showcase for positive design, technology, and building materials.
Because of the cooperative nature of the Community, one of the immediate design improvements we can make would be to design it to be a pedestrian Community. We could bring walking back into our lives, and, when needed, use the Community solar rechargeable electric carts.
When we were meeting to generate the Community Planet description, we realized right away that perhaps the most important question to consider in designing a Community in harmony with the principle of The Highest Good of All is “How are we going to govern ourselves?” The age-old, supposedly politically correct model is democracy’s “majority rules” system.
Through the centuries, many groups like some of the Native American cultures and the Quakers have successfully used consensus decision-making.
Popularly, consensus is thought of as decision via compromise in which everyone loses something. So (in order that) you don’t get confused with how politicians use the term, we described consensus as “differing with other forms of decision-making because it stresses the cooperative development of a decision with people working with each other rather than competing against each other. Everyone has a chance to be heard and come into harmony with the decision. Thus a decision is reached that is acceptable to all, a decision that everyone can say ‘yes’ to. There is no voting, and therefore no losing minority. Because the essence of consensus is creativity and accessing The Highest Good of All Concerned, there is no need to simply compromise