posted
Well, you've all wasted your time arguing about your system of government.
Now that I've registered, the community will clearly be a Norrocracy. I will be in charge of governing, law-making, and, of course, law-enforcement (my specialty).
The punishment for all infractions will be roundhouse kicks of varying severities.
During the workweek, I plow fields using only my beard. After dinner, I will unwind by roundhouse kicking trees into perfectly formed 4"x4"s, to be used for building. Expect the first generation of younglings to all be fathered by me, as everyone know Chuck Norris impregnates women by his mere proximity. There's no need to worry about mutation due to inbreeding in the succeeding generations, though, as Chuck Norris's DNA is perfect.
It will be utopia. And for anyone who disagrees with any of the above, well, you can guess what they've got coming, right?
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chuck Norris: During the workweek, I plow fields using only my beard. After dinner, I will unwind by roundhouse kicking trees into perfectly formed 4"x4"s, to be used for building. Expect the first generation of younglings to all be fathered by me, as everyone know Chuck Norris impregnates women by his mere proximity. There's no need to worry about mutation due to inbreeding in the succeeding generations, though, as Chuck Norris's DNA is perfect.
It will be utopia. And for anyone who disagrees with any of the above, well, you can guess what they've got coming, right?
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: KoM: some communal living experiments on that scale worked out well. Most failed, and often due to things like free-rider problems.
Please give examples. All the small scale communal living experiments which I'm familiar with either succeeded or failed because of a combination of greed and dishonesty. Eventually some members of the community decide they want more stuff than their neighbors have. They either leave the community figuring they can do better on their own, often taking key community resources with them, or they start "skimming the cream of the milk" for themselves (has anyone read "Folk of the Fringe".) In the end thats what ends up tearing communities apart.
I am unaware of any communal experiments that failed due to free loaders. If you have some examples, please give me the references.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sort of amused with the debate over societal ideals. If humanity is whittled down to a select populace of a few thousand people, you will get no ideals. It won't be a 'competitive' environ, nor will it be a 'socialist' environ. In fact, you can throw away all of those paradigms and forget about the academic discussions fostered in a postindustrial world, and back up to the very basics of social contract.
Anyone who survives and can sustain themselves will revert immediately to loose and natural organizations most resembling tribes or bands. Direction and political power is managed by force of will. The most charismatic and promising members of society will lead, simply because they are naturally easing (or preying upon) the intense fear and need for security that everyone will be facing. People will cooperate within these structures, but not within the framework of an idealistic 20th-century industrialized socialism model. Nor will barter or specie be of much importance for generations.
The real issue will be species sustainability. The few people remaining after a couple of winters may be able to live comfortably for a time, but will there be enough of a population base to ensure expanding population beyond a single generation, or will the pool shrink to zero? The population of 'hatrack' may not be sufficient enough to ensure the continuation of the species.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:they either leave the community figuring they can do better on their own, often taking key community resources with them, or they start "skimming the cream of the milk" for themselves (has anyone read "Folk of the Fringe".) In the end thats what ends up tearing communities apart.
I'm trying to remember which story lines up with your hypothesis, and I'm drawing a blank.
quote:the real issue will be species sustainability. The few people remaining after a couple of winters may be able to live comfortably for a time, but will there be enough of a population base to ensure expanding population beyond a single generation, or will the pool shrink to zero? The population of 'hatrack' may not be sufficient enough to ensure the continuation of the species.
I read somewhere that the human race can repopulate itself if more than 60 humans survive. I don't know if it's true or not, but there are some things you're forgetting about this scenario.
1) We're Jatraqueros. We don't kill, steal, or cheat each other.
2) There will be at least 5000 of us, not including families. That's a large and diverse population base.
3)We've got the good sense to migrate to a temperate climate, if we're not already in one. Assuming the infrastructure is still in place, migrating to Pixiest's California won't be difficult at all (assuming we're in the US). Winters won't be a problem.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Failure and retention rates in anarchist communes is always a great subject!
Personally I've never thought that political anarchism was a workable idea ever but even my cold leathery statist heart is willing to acknowledge the myriad number of reasons that communes fail that aren't actually a negative reflection upon the ideology.
The best example is when they try to be self-sustaining agriculturally, despite being stuck having to use whatever limited land is available that civilization hasn't already claimed and fenced off. Often, they'd try to get farming communes to work up in remote mountain regions that was only really available to them because nobody was going to farm there anyway, and then they get all surprised when corn fails to grow well that close to treeline. Derp!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:they either leave the community figuring they can do better on their own, often taking key community resources with them, or they start "skimming the cream of the milk" for themselves (has anyone read "Folk of the Fringe".) In the end thats what ends up tearing communities apart.
I'm trying to remember which story lines up with your hypothesis, and I'm drawing a blank.
I forget the name, but the one with the teacher who reports the people who are selling stuff on the black market.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I read somewhere that the human race can repopulate itself if more than 60 humans survive.
I wonder if that's true. I could believe it. I know I've read that human beings are remarkably genetically homogeneous.
I believe it was in A Short History of Nearly Everything that I read that a normal band of 25 chimpanzees in the wild has more genetic diversity than the entire human race.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:they either leave the community figuring they can do better on their own, often taking key community resources with them, or they start "skimming the cream of the milk" for themselves (has anyone read "Folk of the Fringe".) In the end thats what ends up tearing communities apart.
I'm trying to remember which story lines up with your hypothesis, and I'm drawing a blank.
I forget the name, but the one with the teacher who reports the people who are selling stuff on the black market.
I believe it was "The Fringe."
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, it appears from recent genetic research that humans have only 2 ancestors, 1 male and 1 female. The more complex the organism, the less genetic diversity exists within the species. Sponges are the least complex and most genetically diverse multicellular creature. Humans are the opposite. All other species are in between.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
farmgirl/vonk: Is that the one where the paraplegic teacher gets tossed into the gully?
That was one of my favorite stories from the collection. It saddens me that I don't remember it well...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Porter, it appears from recent genetic research that humans have only 2 ancestors, 1 male and 1 female. The more complex the organism, the less genetic diversity exists within the species. Sponges are the least complex and most genetically diverse multicellular creature. Humans are the opposite. All other species are in between.
Um, no. You are probably referring to 'mitochondrial Eve' and the corresponding Adam whose adjective I don't recall. They are people who are ancestors to all living humans. However, they lived about 70000 years apart (IIRC), and neither of them is the sole ancestor-to-all-people of their gender, just the ones we can identify with current genetic methods.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you sure of that, KoM? Can you link it for me? I hate to ask you, but all the research I've seen indicates that all modern humans have only those two ancestors.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: most of the prominent literature on why communes survive identifies strategies that tackle the free rider problem (such as religious strictures; see Iannaccone, for instance Iannaccone 92) as key to their success.
Some specific literature on that effect on communes is in "Religion and Intragroup Cooperation: Preliminary Results of a Comparative Analysis of Utopian Communities" by Sosis.
"Why Communes Fail: A Comparative Analysis of the Viability of Danish and American Communes", by Shey, is interesting in that their conclusions state that free-loading/growing too big was just not a problem in the Danish communes (though they contrast that with American communes) -- however, they were talking about complete free-loading, not milder forms of free-riding. From their data:
Overidealism -- Unfulfilled Expectations, which comprises ten main components, including lack of responsibility, was identified by 19% of commune member respondents as a reason other communes dissolve.
Lack of Communal Spirit -- Action, which comprises seven main components, including cooperation (lack of) and avoiding communal responsibility, was identified as a reason by 13%.
As for problems the commune members' own communes have encountered, 14% called division of work of major significance and 56% called it of some significance. Too much individualism, which is frequently a manifestation of free-riding (go off and do your own things while letting the community take care of what the community as a whole needs; the respondents are reported to have viewed it as meaning "not doing one's share of the work, not being willing to participate in the daily routine and by generally isolating oneself") was viewed has having major significance by 31% and some significance by 35%.
And those are in a set of communes (Danish ones, that is) viewed as having less of a free rider problem than others!
And of course, most Danish communes failed. Infighting is frequently a stronger component (though if the infighting is over division of community labor, it can hardly be called a property of any small group), but free riding is often a substantial contributor to commune failure.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This certainly does not mean that she is the ancestral mother of all who came after her; during her time and even before her time there were many women and men who contributed to the nuclear genes we now carry. (To see how this can be, check out Tracing Ancestry.) It also does not mean that the mtDNA originated with this "Eve"; she and her contemporaries also had their own "most recent common ancestor though matrilineal descent," a woman who lived even further into the past who passed on her mtDNA to everyone living during "Eve's" time. (We get our mtDNA from that same, older ancestor. She's just not, to us, the most recent common ancestor.)
posted
Actually, even in tiny communes like the family, freeloading is a problem. I love my hubby but he doesn't pull his weight around the house. We both work but I do the cooking and laundry and I'm lucky if I can get him to lug the trash to the dumpster.
I don't think this is an uncommon problem. In fact, I'd go as far to say that it's a cultural problem (though I think it's getting better.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Actually, even in tiny communes like the family, freeloading is a problem. I love my hubby but he doesn't pull his weight around the house. We both work but I do the cooking and laundry and I'm lucky if I can get him to lug the trash to the dumpster.
I don't think this is an uncommon problem. In fact, I'd go as far to say that it's a cultural problem (though I think it's getting better.)
Actually I hear more and more about girls who do not keep tidy households or even basic hygiene (leave dishes in the sink for weeks, messes in the bathroom are uncleaned).
I remember growing up with the distinct impression that men were slobs on the average and that was wrong, but girls were uniformly more oriented towards tidy clean environments.
Boy that myth got shattered when I first went to college.
I am scared to hell as to what the generation of people my kids will grow up associating with.
edit: Though I agree that the sentiment, "Women belong ONLY in the kitchen and on the birthing table" is taking a much deserved beating.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
