Andrew Scott wrote:UPDATE!!!
We have officially purchased our first property for this project. Due to real estate prices, our hunter-gatherer bias, and supportive friends in the area already living a more or less subsistence hunting + small scale gardening lifestyle, we selected a property in Alaska to get things started.
Francisco Gonzalez wrote:I very much liked your idea of several properties that would be close or adjacent to National Forest or other public access land. So are you close to National Forest and does it look like you will be able to purchase property #2 and property #3 within a human capable travel distance from your first one?
Kate Michaud wrote:
Land is relatively cheap because of climate and topography, yet excellent for Permaculture. It is a custom here to gather seasonal goodies, and bring home wild game. There is vacant land, even abandoned towns that could serve as your Nodes. So where is this place? Central Ontario, Canada, nudging towards Northern On. ...
Francisco Gonzalez wrote:Andrew this is a brilliant thread. I'm hoping you can take time to edit out the best parts and post them as an article somewhere, perhaps on your web site.
Speaking of which, do you have a web site and or any way to get in contact with you other than Facebook?
I don't use Facebook.
Mick Fisch wrote:...I think it would be pretty difficult to get a group of any size who all buy into the same world view and set of societal rules... Among hunter/gatherer groups that I've read about there were and are a lot of blood-ties and a very homogeneous world view and what the rules of behavior are in each group. When a family goes from one band to another, they are usually going from one part of the extended family to another, and they all play by the same rules (not necessarily our societies rules).
In a society that values equality as highly as immediate-return societies do, there can be no single, correct version of events or values. After all, if the values of one person are considered correct, then a different set of values held by another person must be incorrect. This dichotomy implies inequality, which is actively avoided in immediate-return societies.
The concrete result is that individuals in immediate-return societies have few verbalized rules of behavior, their rituals are highly variable (and may even be dispensed with altogether), and the individuals have no single, clear idea of a moral order (Brunton, 1989). Knowledge in immediate-return societies is idiosyncratic and gained by personal experience. It is not handed down by others. As one individual put it, “None of us are quite sure of anything except of who and where we are at that particular moment” (quoted in Brunton, 1989).