The Oroborous Community

Detailed reply to a comment

2011-04-11T16:34:00.004-05:00

Mr. Ross Wolfe made a comment that I feel deserves a more detailed response than Blogger allows for in the "comments" section.

-----Comment-----

It's not a question of necessity. As Engels said, the passage into a post-capitalist society will be an emancipation, a passage from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. It's an expression of human freedom that I can eat a banana in the middle of winter, a miracle of globalization.

Marxism stood for a global world system, international in character, with universal production and distribution and exchange. Lenin was personally somewhat ascetic, but he did not advocate an ascetic lifestyle. For the future society must be one of abundance, not of scarcity. Of freedom, not raw need.

------Reply-----

Let me respond with a question:

Let us suppose we are in a world where we have moved beyond money, the revolution is complete, we are in a society that focuses on the good of it's people, rather than unnecessary exploitation (of people or natural resources). In this society the price of something is measured in terms of the resources (man power and energy) required to provide the good or service.

So, in a very real sense you are now, for the first time, paying the full price of that good or service. Since bananas can be grown (with less COMMERCIAL viability) in California's southern regions we will use that as the geographic location as the source for our comparison. Let us compare the banana vs the local greenhouse banana vs hothouse cantaloupe.

Outdoor Banana

Amount: 1 tonne

Distance: 2,900 KM

Fuel (freight train with 250 KJ / tonne KM): 725,000 KJ (4.9 gallons of diesel fuel)

Fuel to grow: n/a (grown in the sun, outdoors)

Human labour to grow, harvest, ship: 18 months per tree, each tree produces about 40 pounds, thus 55 trees needed. Time per tree over 18 months: 2 days. Time for all 55 trees: 110 days.

Estimated energy of human labour: 17,245 KJ/day @ 110 days / tonne = 1,896,950 KJ

Total Energy use to bring bananas from California: 2,621,950 KJ

I have not included here the labour involved in inspections, borders, the construction and maintenance of the train and track itself, and so on. These are discounted for the purposes here. I have also not counted the pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that are currently used because I would hope that in a society that focuses on efficiency, such things would be done away with in favour of more efficient natural systems.

Hothouse Banana

Amount: 1 tonne

Distance: 0 KM

Fuel: n/a (people come to the neighborhood greenhouse)

Fuel to grow: Heat from compost is free, and since each banana 'tree' only produces once, every 18 months there will be a great deal of compost. Furthermore, using insulating glass (these windows have R-value of 10 which is four times greater than fiberglass loose-fill) to you can greatly increase the heat retention of the greenhouse, and reduce the need for heat generation.

Human labour to grow, harvest: 18 months per tree, each tree produces about 40 pounds, thus 55 trees needed. Time per tree over 18 months: 1.75 days. Time for all 55 trees: 96.25 days.

Estimated energy of human labour: 17,245 KJ/day @ 96.25 days / tonne = 1,659,831.25 KJ

Total Energy use to grow bananas locally: 1,659,831.25 KJ

I have discounted the cost of the greenhouse itself and it's maintenance.

So, the local hothouse banana is only 63% the resource cost of shipping from California! That means that for the same cost as growing your bananas in California you can grow 37% more locally! Still think local is a crock? Even is the only savings were in the form of shipping, that is still 750,000 KJ, or 43.5 labour days!

Hothouse Cantaloupe

Amount: 1 ac of crop land (1 ac of hothouses) produces 18,000 pounds or 8 tonnes

Distance: 0 KM

Fuel: n/a (people come to the neighborhood greenhouse)

Fuel to grow: see hothouse banana

Human labour to grow, harvest: 2 days / ac for harvest time ( I am adding 2 day / ac for the rest of the life cycle)

Estimated energy of human labour: 17,245 KJ/day @ 4 days / ac = 68,980 KJ

Total Energy use to grow bananas locally: 68,980 KJ for 8 tonnes (8,622.5 KJ / tonne)

I have discounted the cost of the greenhouse itself and it's maintenance.

I could add to the hothouses the energy cost of electric lights for the winter, but since they would be solar and wind powered the cost would still be zero.

Another way to look at this is per pound, as fruit is purchased by the pound.

Outdoor Banana: 1,189.3 KJ/pound

Hothouse Banana: 752.9 KJ/pound

Hothouse Cantaloupe: 3.9 KJ/pound

Put into perspective in terms of the number of hours you would need to work to afford each of these items (1 hour = 2,155.6 KJ):

Outdoor Banana: 33.1 minutes/pound

Hothouse Banana: 21.0 minutes/pound

Hothouse Cantaloupe: 0.12 minutes/pound

The point behind growing local is to save resources. Not to deprive the selfish, pampered bourgeoisie of their luxury items. So if you want to spend your time / "money" on the luxury of a banana, that is up to you. No one is saying you cannot. But you can save yourself 10 minutes by shopping local.

Mr. Wolfe, I hope this answers your question / comment sufficiently. Also, to your comment about being eager to read more, I will be posting roughly once a week. I am squeezing the blogging time in between a number of other commitments. Be well.

Response to Mr. Wolfe prt 3 / 19: The Rural Ideal

2011-04-01T17:07:00.002-05:00

This is part 3 in a 19 part series responding to a critique of the environmental movement by Ross Wolfe. His blog, with the original post is linked to in the title.
Covered in this post:

The environmentalist movement (EM) has a false, fetishized view of the rural life.

Points made to support your line of thought:

The EM wants a kinder capitalism (one of small, local business)
The EM views farmers as selfless and hard working
Marx and Engels called the rural ideal "the idiocy of rural life"

Firstly, the kinder capitalism is not false. It comes in many forms, all of them focused on the empowerment of the lower class / working poor (aka proletariat, to use wording you may be more comfortable with). Time Magazine cites the New Economics Foundation in stating that local purchases are twice as efficient at bolstering the local economy. In the blog Food System Factoids blogger Tim Crosby shows the economic impacts of a state supported food program called Jersey Fresh, outlining how the local food initiative has a 1:54 Return on Investment! The quality of life policy think tank livablecity did an economic impact analysis of local vs chain retailers and found a significantly positive impact can be made by spending the exact same amount of money in local retails that one would have at a chain store.

How does "local economy" empower the lower classes? By enabling them to compete on relatively equal footing when / if they go into business for themselves (aka acquire the means of production). This is also in line with Marx's theory of incremental revolution. The "kinder capitalism" is also known as "Socialism". Also, more money that stays in the local community the more money that will be (and is) invested in local businesses and start-ups. In other words a virtuous cycle of local investment and development / empowerment of the local lower classes.

Secondly, the concept that the EM believe farmers are working selflessly for the benefit of the masses is... well... unfounded. I have never come across / talked with / heard anyone in the EM talk about farmers as being "selfless". Everyone knows that farmers, like everyone else, need income, and have families to feed. No one I have spoken with expects farmers to give their produce away, nor do they expect to get it for at-cost. Everyone expects the farmer to make a profit when selling locally.

The examples Mr. Wolfe uses to show the evils of farmers (farmers agreeing to burn their cotton crops to increase the value, then each goes and grows it again hoping to capitalize on the potentially higher prices) are only truly effective when done on a large scale. This would require a handful of megafarms (the larger, industrialized farms commonplace today) or hundreds of smaller farmers. It is easy to get a handful of people on-board to price-fixing schemes, but when you start to look at hundreds, many of whom have personal relationships with their clients, the challenge becomes much greater!

Also, Mr. Wolfe, I am under the impression you have never worked on a farm a day in your life; I have. My mother was dating a farmer when I was 6 and 7; at 6 years old I was put to work on the farm. The work was crazy easy and very fun... feed the chickens. My mother helped me at first, but I quickly wanted to do it myself and grew to really enjoy watching the chickens scramble for their grain allotment. It was the kind of farm most people think of when they think "farm". It was a mixed farm with grain, cattle, chickens, and a home-quarter that supplied all the vegetables and meat for the household. I remember watching Walter (my mom's boyfriend) while he worked. From the time the sun was up until after it had set he was mending fences, tending animals, seeding, harvesting, tending the vegetable plots, etc. It is hard work, especially when you do it in a sustainable way. Farm owners are considered businessmen, and therefore have no health benefits, no time off, no sick leave, and no pension or retirement plan.

Mr. Wolfe, I challenge you: if you think you can handle 12-18 hour days with about the same net pay as you make as a Manager at McDonalds, go right ahead. Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, do not infer that an entire class of people are corrupt, lazy capitalists with little more concern than their next big scam. Such generalizations are unscientific, and thus un-Marxist.

That brings me to my final comment. Mr Wolfe states in his blog "But that doesn't stop activists from calling for a return to this paradise that Marx and Engels called 'the idiocy of rural life' ". The hyperlink it to the original text that Mr. Wolfe is MISQUOTING. The full context is as follows:

------

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

------

Given Marx's hatred of the "bourgeoisie" it can be inferred that anything they have done is "bad" in Marx's eyes. Also given Marx's propensity for biting sarcasm (as he was writing for a non-academic audience and therefore tried to keep his readers engaged), it is reasonable to assume that he is saying here that the country being subjected to the rule of the towns is considered a negative thing by Marx, and thus it is sarcasm when he mentions how the "bourgeoisie" "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." The rest of this quoted paragraph re-enforce the supposition of Marx's sarcastic tone when he refers to the "idiocy of rural life".

The paragraph directly following the one quoted above further re-enforces Marx's hatred for the towns, and therefore love of the rural areas.

------

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

------

So, Mr. Wolfe has mis-quoted Marx to bolster his own views and claim it was backed by Marx. This is unprofessional and misleading. I will take this chance to mention another group that mis-quotes their philosophers and leaders to back up fringe or opposing views is the same group that Marx called the "opiate of the masses"(paragraph 4). Think about that for a moment Mr. Wolfe.

Response to Mr. Wolfe prt 2 / 19: Localism

2011-04-01T16:06:00.007-05:00

This is part 2 in a 14 part series responding to a critique of the environmental movement by Ross Wolfe. His blog, with the original post is linked to in the title.
Covered in this post:

Localism (be it food or commerce) and urban agriculture are elitist

Points made to support your line of thought are:

Locavores act ‘holier than thou’
Affording land for urban agriculture is only for the wealthy
Affording organic or local produce is only for the wealthy

Firstly, it may well be true the SOME locavores are rude or snobby. It is true of any population, group, subset, or community. Every human being has an in-born drive to belong to a tribe. This drive manifests in a number of ways, some hurtful to others, and some not so hurtful. For example “my tribe does not drive SUVs”. That can be fine, if it stops there, but for some people they feel insecure about the definition of their tribe, or their own inclusion in it, so they feel the need to lash out at those who are not part of their tribe, supposedly showing their tribe “look I am REALLY not in favour of SUVs, I just keyed that guy’s Hummer”. This is nothing more than a sign of insecurity, and these people should be pitied, perhaps even embraced rather than denigrated or insulted.

Secondly, the urban agriculture movement as it is occurring here in Canada, in Australia, and parts of non-British Europe is very free and very community oriented. Most of the Community Gardens are on municipal or provincially owned land. In some cases a poor neighbourhood will all pool together to buy an abandoned or derelict property from the city and turn it into the community garden and park for the children. An example of this took place in Spence neighborhood in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Another example of the NON-elitist nature of urban agriculture is the program run by SIFE Brandon (Student In Free Enterprise). Their community gardens program called “Green Futures” has, in one year, built 45 raised beds with a total of 2,100sf of growing space. Each bed produces 15 lbs of produce (total retail value of this produce is an estimated $2,000)!

Lastly, affording local produce is only for the wealthy. This one in particular amused and concerned me. The reason it amused me is because I have heard this argument time and again, and it is often shown to be either purposeful propaganda by a competitor or sadly misinformed. The reason it concerned me is because, if you HAVE actually done your research and contact a CSA (community supported agriculture) and asked about pricing and you have still found them to be more expensive than market prices… well then I am concerned that the farmers in your area are ripping you off. I suggest at LEAST finding out historical farm gate prices for the product you want (use an inflation calculator to bring it to current dollars) and compare with what the farmer is asking. Usually about 10% over farm gate is considered ok, 15% is ripping you off.

Personal example: My family (2 adults, 1 toddler and now an infant) collectively eat 2 lbs of green pepper a week.

Local super market price: $2.50
historical farm gate price(adjusted for inflation): $1.81
add 10%: $1.99
savings: $0.51 per pound
annual savings: $53.04

Now think of similar savings across every food item you eat in a week. For our family it would be 10 different fruits and vegetables. That is an annual savings of $500! That is a lot of money to a poor family. Elitist? I do not think so! I think it is elitist to be sitting in an urban dwelling, at a computer (which most people cannot afford), citing sources that most people cannot even understand never mind have time to read!

I think there are many ways to go about engaging in urban agriculture. You can garden in boxes, in raised beds, in the ground or hydroponically; three of the four methods can be done on rooftops, basements, apartments, houses, or garages. Gardening can be for as little as 1% of your annual food needs or as much as 75%, it all depends on your resources available and what you choose to eat. The resources need not all be on you either; communities can bond together, work together to a common good, or each household do one vegetable or one part of the process.
For example, say Bob has a large back yard, but a bad back. Tim loves gardening, but has no land. Neither Bob nor Tim can pickle a cucumber to save their souls, but John is a natural. What do you think these three should do? Each of them go to the store and buy $50 of pickles a year, or each one contribute in their own way to save everyone the $50 a year? Each has contributed something that a capitalist would say has a monetary value: land, time, skills. If those resources are equal in value TO THEM to the $50 a year, then it is valuable for them to grow and pickle their own cucumbers.

Localism is about empowerment, not elitism; freedom, not subjugation. It does not have to be about an “US vs THEM”, it can instead be about “US with US” all benefiting one another. Economic Game Theory (think of the movie “A Beautiful Mind” or the tv series “Numb3rs”) shows that even when acting in our own self-interest the co-operative strategies are the most lucrative. While it is difficult to co-operate with Mexican immigrant farmers in California (over 2,000 miles away), it is fairly easy for me to co-operate with my neighbour.
In summary:

Locavores act ‘holier than thou’: some do, but this should be the standard by which an entire group are judged for snobs exist in every social group
Affording land for urban agriculture (UrAg) is only for the wealthy: UrAg can be done in your back yard or apartment balcony, if you have one square foot of space, you can have UrAg.
Affording organic or local produce is only for the wealthy: CSAs actually save the consumer money, and can be more profitable for the farmers as well!

I hope that answers that point. Look forward to the next post:
The environmentalist movement (EM) has a false, fetishized view of the rural life.

Response to Mr. Wolfe prt 1 / 19: prelude

2011-04-01T13:19:00.016-05:00

Thank you for your comment Mr. Wolfe, while I do not agree with your opinion, I am a scientist first and therefore welcome discourse.

The post you refer to is actually quite long (over 5,000 words). I would suggest a way to increase the readability of your future posts by breaking them up into smaller segments (about 1,000 words).

However, that said this post brings up some interesting questions / critiques of the “Green movement”. First, let me say thank you for exposing me (and by extension my readers) to this blog. While I may not agree with much of what you say, or the way in which you say it, I am none-the-less intrigued.

1.THE IDEOLOGY OF “LOCAL” AND “ORGANIC”: LOCAVORES AND URBAN-AGRICULTURALISM

a. Localism (be it food or commerce) and urban agriculture are elitist

b. The environmentalist movement (EM) has a false, fetishized view of the rural life.

c. The EM is focused on over population

d. The return to local-focused living would result in a population drop (not a main argument but an important point that merits discussion)

e. Capitalism is responsible for the population explosion

f. Leftists promoted mechanization

g. This is the first time we produce enough to supply the total human population of the planet

2. LIFESTYLE POLITICS: VEGANS, FREEGANS, AND RAW FOODISTS

a. People who practice these lifestyles (for whatever reason) are smug, arrogant and will have no impact on society at large.

3. ECOFEMINISM

a. It reinforces the very cultural stereotypes that the feminists are supposedly fighting

b. Religion and superstition have no place in rational discourse on environmental or social issues

4. RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM: GREEN ANARCHISM AND ANARCHO-PRIMITIVISM

a. These groups are moved to violent, criminal and sometimes “terrorist” actions to ‘prove’ their point

b. The anarcho-primitivist movement is pro-collapse and any civilization as it is the ‘root of all evil’.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS: RESULTS AND PROSPECTS

a. Sustainability is about "exploitation of natural resources without the threat of environmental catastrophe"

b. Eco-activists feel that we should have a "respect for nature as an inviolable (secure from destruction) thing-in-itself"

c. Self-sufficiency is a long-outdated ideal

d. The green movement poses no solutions for reconciling man with nature

e. The Marxist solution: radical social transformation

In order to respond effectively I will break your post into its primary arguments as I see them. Feel free to correct me. I will respond to each sub-point in its own post.

We're BACK!

2011-03-31T14:38:00.004-05:00

For those of you who know, the Oro (short for Oroborous) founder / designer has been working on his Masters of Rural Development degree, and having a family, and basically been too busy to breath. But now, inspired by re-connecting with an old friend he has decided to make / take time to work on this project. That means that there will be period updates with tech, innovations, information, knowledge resources, etc.

We used to have a web-space called oroborous.webs.com that is going to be / has been deleted. This blog can be updated on the go via the iPhone / Android apps and any content that the blog cannot handle (video / pictures) can be housed elsewhere and linked here. So, there is really no need for a website that is so time intensive.

Look forward to more updates! Be well.

Rules for building an ecovillage

2011-03-31T14:38:00.001-05:00

These rules come from an article on the site EcoVillage News entitled "Rules of Thumb for Starting an Ecovillage". The quoted textis between the dash lines.
Article Starts Here -------------------------------
Early on, agree on a decision-making procedure. Some variant of consensus in the whole group is common, but initialstages may be served better by a small group of founders making all thedecisions themselves.
Prioritize process skills. Take the time to explore interpersonal conflict issues and find resolution. Determine your mission first. It’s too easy to rush into looking for land before you’ve hammered out your group’s identity.
Know how you want the community to function before choosing a legal model. It’s tempting to settle on a particular legal model before you've worked out exactly how you as founders want things to run in the community.
Manage council (that is, your local regulatory agency). If you’re doing anything “out of the box,” get council on board very early — and be prepared tocontinue to educate them, possibly through two or three terms of officedifferent councilors (regulatory officials).
Spread the load. Find ways to pass the baton amongst various founders with leadershipability, and to get the whole group to mobilise in concerted action. A “one-man band” will fail, period.
Build common facilities central, first, and big. Central means they will be visited often and used naturally; firstmeans people don’t have to build workshop or guest quarters or installlaundry tubs in their own house; big means there will be plenty ofoptions for usage. All of these physical layout decisions help promotea strong sense of community.
Value the community-building process. By far the biggest resource any group has is not land or money, it ispeople — and specifically, a group of people who can achieve much moretogether than they could alone. Design for sustainablity and community simultaneously.
Use systems design. Design so the village can be at one and the same time a farm, a school, a residence, a workplace, a safe haven, and a place of beauty. Each element should contribute toward a robust and resilient society; toward rehabilitating and nurturing the land itself; toward conviviality; toward security; and toward a deep sense of place and belonging. The key phrase here is “Permaculture design.”
Take your time. It will take many years for people starting from scratch to createanything resembling a sustainable community because of how manydecisions and how much work is involved. From scratch to settlement theprocess is likely to take 2, 5, or even 10 years — and that’s notcounting the next 20 years or so of maturing as a society.
Be flexible. Every location has a unique set of challenges and a unique collectionof people (which means there is no McSustainable Village franchiseacross the world). Creating a better place to live involves continualcreative thinking, consultation, and commitment to hearing all voices. Flexibility is essential.
Aim high.
Hear all voices.
Budget for trainings to build new skills. Allocate funds for trainings in meeting facilitation, conflictresolution, ongoing management, and quality design, as well as forearthworks and buildings. Communities run on people, and people needtraining in how to get along.
Design for resilience. Consider local food production, local business possibilities, localpower generation, energy efficient homes, and a “car-lite” lifestyle.
Design physically for community spirit. Include large, central, multipurpose common facilities; cluster houses together; have many houses looking out onto common greenspace and a play area; prioritise for pedestrians rather than cars.
Design structurally for community. Factor in time for social, business, and “heartspace” meetings — andconsider how to separate these functions; train or hire meetingfacilitators; and embed rites of passage and celebratory rituals in theculture of the community; do work bees (work parties) together.
Laugh. Belly laughs in a meeting are a good sign of health in the community!
Define the group’s identity. Create a shared story which attracts people, and keep telling and tweaking the tale.
Make it hard to get in. A waiting list, a trial period, a solid deposit required, and an orientation process all slow the membership process down and give potential members more time to work out if they are compatible with the group. If they jump all the hurdles, they are likely to fit in well and be keen to stay.
Screen potential members. In addition to self-selection processes, you can evaluate prospective members. Do they put in more than they take out (money, warmth, chores, whatever)? Are they prepared not to get their way all the time? Do they tolerate others? Have an idea of what disqualifies someone from joining thecommunity, and be prepared to say “no” when necessary. Turning someone away before they come in is much easier than evicting them once they have caused havoc.
Make it easy to leave. Things change, people move on. Make the transition as painless as possible — pay attention especially to the legalities and finances regarding how a member may leave the community if they want to. Will they get all or part of their equity back? Make this clear so as to avoid the trap in which a member wants to leave but cannot — and becomes toxic to the group.
Tax entry and/or exit. On the occasion of a member joining or leaving, consider levying somechunk of money — perhaps a percentage of the sale price or a set fee —as a means of keeping funds in the community.
Guard group identity. A community can only handle a small number of emotionally disturbed people, so guard your membership process. I distinguish between peoplewho need more care and attention than most but who are not hostile, andpeople who persistently drain community goodwill and finances. Onceyour community is up and running and doing well, you may be able toabsorb some of the former. But never the latter.
------------------------------- Article Ends Here
Honestly it is my dream that no one be rejected and no one needs to pay for admission. But honestly, this world has conditioned us to think that something that costs us nothing has no value and a group that excludes no one is not worth joining. While we all think we are different andthat we will not fail where so many others have fallen... we are notthat different and we will fall. So, with that in mind I hereby make it clear that I plan to follow these to the letter. However, it should also be clear that I plan to keep the costs as low as possible and the membership as inclusive as possible while still giving meaning to the village and the community.

Not your fathers Hippie Commune!

2011-03-31T14:37:00.002-05:00

Not your father's hippie commune
Every time we have a conversation about the ecovillagepeople come back with the response "yeah but I like having theInternet" or " sounds neat and all but it sounds like too muchwork". These types of responsesthat show a significant lack of education in regards to what an ecovillagetruly is can be frustrating for the ecovillage representative, but one musttake a step back and realize that this is not the source of frustration thatcan be the perfect opportunity to show them how truly marvellous ecovillageliving can be.
For example when someone says to the ecovillagerepresentative "yeah but I like having the Internet" the ecovillageare presented it can come back with the response "How does free high speedwi fi that is open across the entire village sound to you?" When thepotential member hears this they will be taken aback by how truly modern anecovillage can be. People don't think ofan ecovillage as being the kind of place you'd find a wireless Internet oradvanced water treatment facilities [like the kind at Findhorn, UK] that arebeing studied by the United Nations and looked at seriously by every localmunicipality as an alternative to current water treatment facilities. People don't think of Ecovillages as the bastionfuture technology, they think of the more as anarchists or hippies who justwant to disavow all technology and go back to a simpler way of living. What many people don't realize is that thesimple way of living has less to do with the gadgets in our lives and more todo with how those gadgets are used. While it is true that living without a computer or other such gadgetswould make life a little bit simpler it would also in some ways to make lifeharder.
Another example I sometimes give to people is that we arebudgeting to have energy efficient dishwashers in every home. We're not running from technology or modernconveniences we're running instead TOWARD a future free of the use of petroleum,free of slave labour, free of the fear that our children are being taught to hatetheir earth, hate each other and hate themselves. As Marx pointed out their systems ofalienation that are causing us to be separated from our fellow man, fromnature, and from ourselves.
Ecovillages of days gone by did shun technology, but not inthe way some people seem to think. Theywalked away from technology because at that time technology was doing nobenefits and they were suffering from all the negative consequences of thattechnology. Now with modern ComputerTechnology there are many benefits and with recent increases in wind and solarpower which are also modern conveniences we can sustainably make use of moderncomputing technology. For example we canuse computers to the drafting to design the building is that we will build,right down to analyzing shading and rainfall patterns to choose the perfectspot, the perfect structure, the perfect angle of the roof, and any othervariable we might need to know can be calculated before constructionbegins. Thus making the computer thattool of sustainability, a weapon for gaia rather than a tool for herdestruction.
It is also in the long-term plans of this ecovillage to be ableto produce aerogel, a highly insulating clear substance designed by NASA. It is made of silicon and recently has beenfound to be able to be made both of rice stocks due to the fact that ricestocks contain silica, and naturally occurring mineral and the basis for allglass, silicon technology, solar panels, and of course aerogel.
So we're talking of a community that will have nearly zeroinputs from the outside world and nearly negative ecological footprint, wherepeople live as a community interact as friends and family and live the way humanswere meant to live in connection to the earth; and on the other hand betechnologically advanced enough to compete with NASA. This is not a pipe dream, not a farfetchedfantasy, aerogel has been made by a 10 year old, and using Selig has beenproven by a scientist in Asia. There's ahuge do it yourself technology community on the Internet, complete withschematics on how to build almost anything, from 3D television to multi touchtables almost anything can be built for under $1000 with a little moreeducation than grade 9 electronics.
Technology is not the enemy here, the enemy is their use oftechnology. The enemies is ourwastefulness, our sloth, our laziness, and our inability to see that we arewaist deep in manure and just asking to have more piled on every time we turndown an opportunity like this.
That brings me to the next statement I hear very often, andthat is that it would be too much work. Well let me ask you this would you rather work 15 HRS a week foryourself and your friends to have food and shelter and a high quality of life, orwould you rather work 40 hours a week to make someone else rich while you stillsuffer. Many people in today's economyare struggling to get by with two fulltime jobs, and becoming so stressed ofthat but the time they get home they are unable do a task as simple as makesupper for their family. They enjoy awalk with their child, they can not read a book, and sometimes don't even havethe time for personal hygiene. But thisis what is required in this world to make ends meat. Would you not rather the simpler life?
Using Permaculture techniques which will be set up duringthe first stages of construction, passive structure housing, on site organicbased waste water treatment facilities, onsite solar and wind power, an onsitefood production all combine to make the lifestyle that requires very littleeffort for maintenance and upkeep. Gofor a leisurely stroll and come back with a full basket of food. But your kids run and play with the animalswhile you check them or have them checked by the vet. Acts of so called work for labour can beturned very easily into acts of fun and leisure when they're done for yourselfand your family.
Later in the next few months all the posting an exact budgetof how much it will cost to build the houses, how much it will cost to live inhouses, and thus give everyone a better estimate of how much they are requiredto earn outside the community in order to live in the community. Current estimates show that the house's canbe built for less than 100,000 and upkeep and maintenance costs would be lessthan 250 to 500 dollars a month. This ofcourse includes transport costs using the commuting bus. While the $100,000 cost of a house soundslike a lot of money if you consider the fact that building a house inconventional way would cost 2 to 3 times that you can start to see that aresaving quite a bit of money. Then if youlook at the 250 to 500 a month for survival including the telecommunicationsexpenses you can start to see that every month living in the ecovillage willsave you from 1000 to 2000 dollars.
So let's think about this, which would yourather? Run the rat race and always be indebt, or would you like to leave the maze, reduce your stress, and save yourselfsignificant amounts of money? Me and myfamily as soon as we can are going to the ecovillage... and taking a laptop and AutoCAD enabled desktopcomputer with us!

Who are we?

2011-03-31T14:37:00.001-05:00

Hello fellow "sufficients", my name is Allister Cucksey and I have a dream. My dream, and I suspect your dream, is to live in a place that is completely self sufficient. A place where people treat each other like siblings in the human family. A place where we grow most or all of our own food, grow the materials to make our own clothing, textiles, and shelters. A place where if there is animal husbandry, it is done in a human and safe manner. A place where if you absolutely must have an off site job, we are close enough to a major city to find employment, and to get to that job we can car pool in our electric hybrid vehicles.

This dream can be realized. This site is about how. This site is also a gathering place for ideas, concepts, POSITIVE discussion, and people. I would like to realize this dream in the near future. So, along with ideas, this site is to act as a lightening rod for people to gather and get ready to move to this place.

Soon to follow will be the bios of those dedicated to the dream, the ideas we have for the village, and any form of technology (aka methods, plants, etc) that will benefit this and any other village with the mindset of being self sufficient.

But those are the broad strokes, more specifically Oroborous is the name given to the community that will be built close to Winnipeg, MB. It will be an ecovillage much like any other, at least at first. The long term plan is to be a few hundred families strong, and to be able to produce anything from textiles to bio plastics. Just because we are stepping away from modern city lifestyles does not mean we necessarily must walk away from computers, medicine, and the like. Rather, we embrace both and will forever seek a more human and environmentally friendly way of building / manufacturing these things. We will have the best of both worlds, the technology and convenience of modern society (I love my hot showers), and the connection to the earth and to our fellow humans that con only be obtained by a simple and clean life.

So, if you are sick of the rat race, want to know what it means to work for your daily bread with out feeling like you are selling your soul in the process, then please, join us here, and take a step away from the pain and towards the joy. Away from disconnection from your fellow human and towards community.

Towards the Oroborous Community.

What is Oroborous?

2011-03-31T14:36:00.001-05:00

An ecovillage with a focus on sustainability and closed loop and simplicity living.

Why choose the Oroborous myth as the icon for this community?

The Oroborous is a serpent that is eternally eating its own tail, gaining nourishment from its own demise, its end is also its beginning. This is the perfect symbol for a community that will reuse all its own waste products, live completely off the land it will tend, and a community that will perpetually renew itself. It is also a good way to remember the eternal cycle of life. All things are born, live, and then die and in death we nourish the birth and life of others. This is a subtle hint at the idea that modern society may be in its decline, and as such alternative lifestyles should be sought, either to prevent or prepare for the potential cessation of modern western society. For clarity it is important to point out that this is not pointing toward the idea of armageddon or apocalypse or anything of the sort. More like a resource crisis that will force a dramatic shift in our lifestyles. So, why not make the shift gently while we still have the safety net of petrol and abundant resources rather then be forced to make it joltingly later?

What kind of people will be living here?

All kinds. No one will be turned away based on: political affiliation, social status, religion, sexual orientation, social affiliation, race, creed, dietary beliefs, and so forth. The ONLY reason a person will be rejected from the community is because he or she refuses to treat others with respect. That is pretty much it. Respect others and live here in harmony with diversity. Simple. That is the point, simplicity.

For more information on the community, please read the "About Us" page. We invite you to read through the research and plans written here on the "Blog: page, keep up with current developments on the "News" page, If you are interested in supporting Oroborous in any way, or if you wish to live in such a place let us know and become a member! Also, feel free to enter into conversation with us or contact us directly on the "Forums" or "Contact Us" pages. We hope you enjoy the journey through our site.

Be Well