A Walton wrote:wouldn't it make more sense to join a community that already has that?
It seems that the primary reason for the failure of IC's is the inability to create a "critical mass" of members and interest, so approaching this like we approach everything in this country (with rugged individualism) seems counterproductive.
the community must provide for "inculcation" Groups like the Amish and Hutterites persist (albeit imperfectly sometimes) because the people in the group are mostly raised in the culture of the group; ( i.e. thoroughly inculcated). And these groups are generally largely agricultural with a massive dose of religion.
The primary failure of most intentional communities, from what I can understand from having visited a few one man "Ecovillage" or "communities" is not the critical mass aspect of things, but the lack of cohesive inclusive philosophy or religion, or lack of belief that the leadership is actually on track with their own ideals or ethics.
Don Goddard wrote:
There may be differences between what you mean by "Intentional Communities" and what I have described but there are many parallels.
Do you feel we had a more cohesive set of societal values back then? I tend to believe this is true, but am wondering what others think.
Joseph Lofthouse wrote:
I currently live in an intentional community that was established 155 years ago, and is still functioning just fine, thank you very much. We all do our own thing, and we all take care of each other. Sure, there are outsiders that live in our community. They either become part of the community, or they leave. No big deal either way. I still visit with childhood friends. I still watch out for their parents as they watch out for mine. We still feed each other depending on who likes raising rabbits, and who likes growing feed for the rabbits.