Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    PowerStruggle: Structured Isolationism: Am I Crazy?

    British villages are starting to form self sufficient, isolationist communities, it gives me an idea

    Started by: Munroe Raves:13

    Subscribe » RSS

    Some British villages are no longer letting property to the 'outside world', as they struggle to create an isolationist, energy efficient community. The Village Council is now the fashinable face of local law and politics. While every man/village for himself is not a good idea, it is hard to govern a country with so many scattered rural communities. So I designed a happy medium. Is it any good? Structured Isolationism- Rural communities adopt programs of self sufficiency compatible with other villages, in a sense we allow rural towns to set out their own solutions, while networking trade, help and ideas between similar communities. Not only will this help the individual villages but the government with have a much easier tie controlling the structure of communities. Any good? Be honest now.

    My superstruct is all about sharing ideas between communities so I like this, but I\\\'d like to hear more. For example, can you provide some details on this idea: \\\"compatible with other villages\\\". Thanks.

    Yes, have you created a Superstructure for this idea? If so maybe you could provide a link to it. It has links to my Superstructure the Common Purpose Engine too, so maybe you\\\'d like to join and help us refine it (http://superstructgame.net/SuperstructView/2)

    Many national governments are having trouble holding together, so I think you\\\'re very right to be looking for better ways of structuring local organisation.

    As soon as you\\\'d consider this idea outside of brittain, in a country with somewhat different appreciation of central government, you\\\'d conclude, right - exploitation. And the same will go for england. As soon as parts of the country will decide to isolate themselves, and the govt cant do anything about it - exploitative, coercive elements will come down on them and make a profit. T hink criminal overlords. Drug traders. Slavers. We see this everywhere, in all of history.

    This is what I am trying to accomplish with my blog. Intentional communities are the best way to survive in a crisis, such as ReDS.

    This is where we are at. Here in central Arizona, we blew the bridges on the highways coming into Sedona and the Verde Valley years ago when the AvianFlu diaspora started sending refugees up here. We had actually planned it for Y2K, but didn\\\'t have to use it then. Luckily, we have lot\\\'s of stand alone ranches, and back to the landers, so with the electric car companies, and that solar demo facility, we are doing ok. The biggest joke was that car battery re-manufacturing factory that we all fought so hard to keep out. Turns out it has saved our butt, since we can\\\'t get out, and most of the batteries die here in the heat pretty easily. Also turns out that the sulphuric acid waste can be dumped on rust to make Hydrogen ! Who knew? Since we don\\\'t have many newcomers, we don\\\'t have to worry much about raiders, But it is hard to trade produce across a thousand sq. miles. We end up trading in an area the length of a half tank of motorcycle fuel. Any ideas for keeping food fresh in hot weather, with low tech? we have a couple 12v coolers we can use with vehicles, but we usually send em out with trading parties to get medicines.

    Sounds like a good way forward; cocooning into small isolated and self sufficient environments. Then when the world stabilizes expand and reach out to create connections to the wider world. I think for this to work you would have to truly sever connections not only physically but also internet/communications connections as if your "island" becomes successful the word could spread very fast drawing a lot of attention effectively ruining the little oasis with people who wants a piece as well.

    The immediate value of the Structured Isolationism was shown way back in 2008 when the price of fossil fuels increased sharply. In the United States, for example, many people lived in sprawling suburban areas, requiring lengthy commutes for work or common subsistence items. Moving toward more self-sufficient communities not only reduced overall fuel consumption, but has increased community awareness. This awareness was particularly useful during the various outbreaks, as the community members were far more familiar with each other and their respective needs, which led to diminished spread and more effective treatment of those afflicted.

    While isolated communities might help avoid disease, or even help with energy waste, they are also less likely to draw from the international and globalized pot of knowledge. By this I mean these communities might be unfortunately avoiding new discoveries, technologies and medical improvements that don't necessarily come from within their tiny, self-sufficient environment. Is the cost-benefit of allegedly keeping diseases and scavengers away really worth losing contact with the world for? Structured Isolationism migth give these villages a sense of control over what happens within their borders with an ehcnanced sense of security nkowing that someone out there might still know they're around long enough for them to reach these new discoveries in time. However, it still sound like an illusion of control.

    Suiz, don't you think that even a structurally isolated community could stay connected to the market place of ideas through the web? Just because a community is physically isolated doesn't mean they are excluded from being a part of the conversation.//I don't think that this is a terrible idea (narrowing the focus of government to a local level is a more efficient way to address problems that affect communities), but the inward focus of these communities may distract them from global issues.//Then again, maybe the only way to fix a big problem is one small piece at a time.

    I think we need to look at the flipside, as well. Western structurally isolated communities work well for the people within them, but they largely ignore the global issues that have been caused by the West. Sure, we might be organize the 1 billion or so people in the US and Europe to cluster into small, isolated communities (even this brings up the issue of cities), but we'll be hiding behind our walls (or blowing our bridges) while the rest of the world burns. This hardly seems like a tenable position and it's one that needs to be turned on its head. We need localized subsistence with structured help to other communities. So yes, it is great for a community to be able to subsist on its own, in fact, this is one of the things we must accomplish, but we must accomplish it (to the best of our abilities) the whole world over. I have created a superstructure to assist with this.

    I do not think splitting up is a good idea. This would make it easier for criminals to operate and could end up dividing countries. In civil wars, there are groups inside a country that were already formed, usually for peaceful purposes.

    It seems this discussion has placed more emphasis on the "isolation" aspect than on the self-sufficiency, modularity concept. From the original comment: "Rural communities adopt programs of self sufficiency compatible with other villages, in a sense we allow rural towns to set out their own solutions, while networking trade, help and ideas between similar communities." So, if we replace the word "isolationism" with "self-sufficiency", what do people think of Western communities attempting to build a more local, modular and potentially exportable model? Could the underlying structure of a modern, self-sustainable modular community system be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide variety of variables - from resource availability to religious convictions - and still be mutually supporting?

    Well, many of the other members have thought that this idea of isolation & self-sufficiency can give some sort of empowerment of criminal nets, but if some villages can make a sort of network kind of "you mess with them you mess with us" they could take out criminals

    I think the idea is viable and could actually generate some hotbed hubs: yielding wonderfully creative & innovative solutions to some of the mammoth challenges facing the people of the Isles right now, but having "isolationism" in the name has unfortunate negative connotations. The villages would in fact (from your description) be collaborative AND aiming for 'compatibility' so, if they evolve successfully, the British Isles could work like a honeycomb (mutually supportive cells sharing adjoining 'walls'). So call them "Structured..."(something or other!)??? It strikes me that its potentiality is actually a form of USA's "E pluribus unum", Latin for "Out of Many, One," - (motto on the Seal of the United States). If I remember correctly, the motto was inspired originally by the 'Great Peacemaker' founder of the Iroquois Confederacy, who reputedly showed the tribes how one arrow can easily be snapped, but five bound together.. not so easy. So maybe you call it "Structured Resilience"?! and people can feel bouyed by the fact that 100s of little villages are potential beacons of brilliance beavering away at the burning issues of the day, very fired up by the possibility that THEY could be the phenomenal Village 'cell' that saves the day!

    Giving undue importance to small isolated states was a historical behaviour, thats better-off dead. It leads to heterogenity in every aspect of life, that complicates trade, idea exchange and united & big scaled problem solving strategies. The 100s of little villages are not potential beacons of brilliance, but thought isolation cells for the few people in every single one, that together would be capable of doing great things. If I want my community to be THE cutting edge one, I can't share all of my basic ideas with the others, because they may complete them and do the harvest. Local isolation and global collaboration are opposed in some way. Organizing bright minds in some elitist, geographically distributed and charitable (maybe also OpenSource oriented, to prevent proprietary knowledge stockpiles) communities, that compete, would be a better way to use group identity effects. Besides isolated community cells would waste lots of energy for their individual self-sufficiency infrastructure. Mass production is always more productive than the production of smaller amounts - that was the road to victory for industrialization and it would be contra productive to change something, that had worked as well as this.

    this isolation will eventually lead to micro powers to arise. the "caste" system will emerge again with reverands, soldiers (mercenary), peasents and etc. if these guys have not a backfill philosophy they will not much differ from a resouces management game such as AoE (Age of Empires) or such. Hunt and gather, level up, hent and gather more and level up. I have seen this a million times men, so come and join in GAIANS for a brand new start... bold revolt!

    What happens when one of the isolationist communities has to get up and leave due to climate change or disease in their environment? If all the other communities won't allow them access, where will they go?

    I'm still seeing an emphasis on isolation as if there would be the same kind of isolation villages had in the Middle Ages. Even if communities were to become physically isolated and substantially independent, why assume that with today's global communication network - from satellite phones to personal online images/videos to virtual/mirror worlds - that the same consequences would arise? And human isolation to prevent the spread of ReDS doesn't mean self-navigating robotic vehicles couldn't deliver supplies. By air it's relatively simple, and by road DARPA competitions proved it could be done years ago. So STRUCTURED isolation may very well be a worthwhile consideration.

    @Keppoch - People relocating because of disease is the problem. First, it spreads the disease, and second, it creates conflicts which further exacerbates the situation and causes even further spreading. So perhaps the goal should be for the non-ReDS communities to ensure that infected communities are well-provided, if quarantined. After all, it's very possible the cure for ReDS will come from the mind of infected doctor or scientist. If we think globally, we apt to act more intelligently for everyone's benefit. And as to other issues (climate change, etc), these need to be dealt with in whatever way they can be, but relocation is not always the only answer; usually, it's not the best, only the most expedient.

    Being isolated will eventually drive us insane, we need a community, we need to work together to make this work. P.F

    Government controlling the structure of communities!..yes they will ..this is divide and rule allowing a few with power, money and a ruthless streak to set up an impenetrable fortress with extreme measures of protection against the infection while nature outside does what it always does, a diminishing of virulence or a small mutation in the person or disease which leaves a few surviving. Eventually the protected few will be used to provide a gene therapy against the disease and cloned to make a workforce for rebuilding

    While structured isolationism isn't crazy, here in the Southwest US, where Generation Exile is a huge threat, I'm looking to something else-- Inclusive Isolation. That is, we have created a community similar to structured isolationism, but we actively seek out healthy refugees to join our community. This allows for the expansion of the community and increased independence from the outside world as we broaden our resource base. It puts greater strain on the community, but it is a calculated risk taken in order to save lives and increase our own long-term chances of survival. Thoughts?

    @Taralynn - my first thoughts are that as your community grows it will become a more desirable destination. As such it will attract everyone; not just the disease-free refugees you're willing to accept. This means you'll have to create an impenetrable fortress which is entirely self-sustaining, because desperate people will resort to desperate means ... and there's no shortage of weapons. Furthermore, you'll need to be on the guard for transmission by unexpected agents, such as birds, because the disease could mutate. And if you can't prevent infection - and your chances *will* diminish as your community grows - you risk the infection of a greater number of people as a result. Your positive then becomes a significant negative. And then what?




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL