如果这不是理念村,那是什么?

读者: 532    发布时间: 2008

原文: If Not Intentional Community, Then What?

Erskine FallsRegular readers know that I'm infatuated with the idea of Intentional Community, and that I believe the only way we're going to make major positive changes to our unsustainable culture is by creating 'working models' of a better way to live and make a living.

An Intentional Community is a group of people with shared values and shared purpose who agree to live together to further those values and realize that purpose. Around the world there are hundreds of ICs, but the large majority of them are very small (smaller than the average struggling-nation family) or very short-lived. For awhile I doubted that ICs had enough urgency and commitment to compel most members to stick them out when times got tough or disagreements arose. Joe Bageant's son's argument that 'communities are born of necessity' is pretty compelling. And in Second Life the turnover in 'communities' is enormous -- many people change their 'home' as often as they change their clothes.

But while 'accidental communities' may outlast intentional ones, the evidence is that most of them are not happy places -- nor are they sustainable in a modern world quickly running out of room, resources, and the essentials of life. We've left community formation up to accident, and we got what we deserved -- greedy real estate developers telling us where we can and cannot live, turning the Earth into unnatural wasteland.

My study of indigenous, 'tribal' communities suggests that, while they are sustainable (at least they were until our civilization encroached irrevocably and dramatically into their habitat), they are not necessarily happy places, especially for non-conformists and especially when they abut other such communities (this seems to trigger an endless cycle of inter-tribal violence).

I have a perhaps idealistic view of the communities of wild creatures, which are not nearly as violent as the makers of sensationalist nature films would have us believe. From my studies of birds in particular, I've learned that life for other creatures in the wild is mostly joyful, peaceful and care-free. I've also learned that Gaia, the complex self-regulating system of all-life-on-Earth, is graceful, respectful, honourable, and astonishing.

If all-life-on-Earth can figure out how to live as responsible, sustainable, joyful and mostly peaceful life, what's wrong with us? Are we really a rogue species, unable to fit into the ecosystem that has evolved so effectively for millions of years? Or are we just going about the business of belonging to Earth all wrong, and, if so, what do we need to learn (or unlearn) and show to get us back on the right track?

My fall-back, if I cannot find a way to join with others to be a model in community, is Radical Simplicity, a model of a personal way of living devoted to:
  • leaving the Earth as we found it, unhampered in its ability to sustain itself indefinitely
  • consuming as little of the Earth's resources as we need to be fully ourselves
  • measuring our 'success' not by material wealth or GDP but by the quality of our lives ('our' meaning that of all creatures we share our ecosystems with) -- health, well-being, happiness, learning, love
  • relearning to listen to the Earth, to pay attention, and to live in harmony as a part of it
Perhaps because I've lived a prosperous, materially comfortable life, yet not found in it the happiness or health or well-being that I have always intuitively sought, it is easy for me to shrug off material measures of success. I can appreciate how those who have struggled for basic necessities all their lives would find my quest elitist, disconnected from the reality of the modern human condition. What good is a model of a better way to live if 90% of the people on this horrifically overpopulated planet will be completely unpersuaded of its value, even if they could afford to emulate it?

Yet I can't shake my fascination with the idea of Intentional Community. In theory it still makes sense. For the same reason, I'm also still fascinated with the idea of polyamorism, the idea that we're not meant to love or be loved by just one person, and that monogamy demands so much of us that we end up losing ourselves to compromise, or fracturing. I hear the two common objections to polyamorism: That it's a self-indulgent and absurdly unrealizable fantasy of middle-aged males. And that it's fearful, an attempt to insulate ourselves against the loss of love, against commitment, against responsibility, against being hurt. Maybe so.

(listening to House in the background -- a woman says to her new lover, one of the House doctors, after he indulges her: "I need you to do what you want. I can take care of me...I need you to take care of you.")

All of this internal debate inside my own head is, perhaps, the crux of the problem. I need to learn to let go, not to be afraid to be truly human, truly myself, to live in the real world. Not to be afraid of intimacy or responsibility. To be fearless. To try not to try too hard.

I need to think. I'm such a slow learner.

Or maybe I think too much. Maybe what I'm lacking is data. Maybe I spend too much time thinking and not enough time being. Before I can decide where I belong, perhaps I have to try belonging somewhere outside my own head.

Or maybe I should lock myself in a lab and learn biology and invent some dust that, spread from above the Earth, could halve the probability of women everywhere becoming pregnant. Or invent a meat, tasty as the finest on the planet, that could be grown in a test tube, in anyone's garden, and spare the world's creatures the outrage and misery of factory farms, and the horror of famine and hunger.

If not Intentional Community, then what?

I have no idea. I know it's not political or social reform, or 'free' markets, or new technology, or revolution, or spiritualism. We've tried all these things for ten thousand years, and they've only made matters worse. And I know that there is no going back, that there are no noble savages, that history has many lessons but no better models of how to live.

When I know myself a little better, when I know who I really am and start to have an inkling where I might belong, maybe I'll have some answers, some possibilities that make more sense. If so, you'll be the first to know.

Image: Erskine Falls, Australia, photo from my Picasaweb collection

Category: Let-Self-Change

译文: 如果这不是理念村,那是什么?

Erskine Falls我的老读者都知道我对理念村这个概念十分着迷,我始终相信,要对我们不可持续发展的文化传统,做出一些积极的改变的唯一途径,是创造出具有表率作用的生存方式,一种更好的生存方式。


理念村的概念,指的是一群拥有共同价值观和目标的人走到了一起,将他们的价值观深化,共同实现他们的目标。在全球范围内,有几百个这样的理念村,但是他们中的绝大多数要么规模都不大(比那些仍旧在战乱中的国家的平均大小还小)要么就是十分短命。曾经我怀疑过,当生活变的举步为艰,内部产生意见不和时,这样的理念村是否具有足够的强制力能够让它的“村民”们坚持下去。Joe Bageant他儿子有个引人注目的理论:“社会的产生总是有起必然性。”在第二人生游戏(second life)中,“网络社区”的人口流动十分迅速很多人“搬家”的速度和他们换衣服的速度一样快。
但是,当那些在偶然之间形成团体总是显得比那些为了某些原因而形成的要长久很多时,有证据表明,它们中的大多数也不是什么乐土,同样在这个快速消耗着空间,资源和生活必需品的世界里,无法保证自身的可持续发展。现在我们随机地组成各种社区,因此我们得到了我们应得的报应贪婪的房地产开发商们不断告诉我们,哪里我们可以居住,而哪里又是我们不能居住的;渐渐地把地球变成了一个不合自然规律的不毛之地。


在对于那些土著民和部落的研究中,我发现,当他们还能够持续发展自身的时候(至少在我们的文明不可挽回地大肆侵略他们聚居地之前,确实是这样的),他们也不是理所当然如我所想的那样,生活得自由自在,特别是对于那些叛逆者或者与叛逆者为邻的人而言(这似乎触发了了无止境的内部斗争)

我有这样一个想法,假设存在一个理想化的野生群落,但不是象感觉论的自然电影所反应出的那种荒蛮之地。在对鸟类的研究中,我发觉对于大自然中的其他生物而言,生活总是那么快乐,平和,无忧无虑。我也明白了盖亚(Gaia所说的理论,那个具有自我调节能力的“巨生命系统”是多么杰出和惊人,他值得我们尊敬,值得我们为之骄傲。


如果地球上的所有生物都可以找到自身的方式,快乐无忧地平和生存,同时保持自身的可持续发展,并对这个星球负责,那么我们人类是怎么了?难道我们真的是一个凶猛而离群的种族吗?我们没有能力去融入几百年来不断进化的生态系统吗?又或者说我们不断地把自己的意志强加给这个星球是错的?如果是这样,那我们要学习什么(或者不去学习什么)来让我们回到正确的轨道上呢?
 

如果我不能找到一条途径加入到一些人的行列中,对其他人作出表率作用,那我所信任的是“及至简化”,一种榜样式的个人生活方式,它可以被理解为: 

  • 让地球回到它当初的样子,能够毫无阻碍的依靠其自身的能力无限期地可持续发展。
  • 消耗尽量少的地球资源来满足我们自己的需求
  • 不要通过物质财富的多少或者GDP来衡量我们的成就,而是用我们的生活质量去衡量(我所说的“我们”是指共同拥有这个生态系统的所有生物)-- 健康程度,幸福指数,学习能力,以及爱心。
  • 重新学会倾听来自大自然的声音,关注大自然,并且把自己当成大自然的一部分,与其和谐相处

 

也许是因为我一直生活的十分顺利,在物质上也很充实,而没有注意到那些我直觉中一直追求的东西,健康、安宁与幸福。其实耸耸肩摆脱用物质衡量成功与否,对我来说也不难。我能够意识到那些穷其一生都在为生活基本必需品而奋斗的人,他们如何能够明白我这样的追求,这种和整个人类的现代社会现实相脱离的追求,会是杰出的行为。如果在这个人口极度过量的地球上,有90%的人没有被说服认同一种生活方式的典范,即使他们有能力可以再创造出一种比之更好的,那么提出这样的生活方式又有什么好处?


    但我对理念村这种想法的迷恋依然不会受到动摇。理论上,它仍然是有道理的。同样的道理,我对于“多边恋”这样的设想也十分着迷,这个构想指的是我们没有必要只爱一个人或只被一个人所爱。一夫一妻制剥夺了我们很多东西以至于到最后我们失去了自我,变得妥协,否则就会玉石俱焚。我听到过两种反对“多边恋”的看法:这是一种中年男人的自我麻醉,荒谬而不切实际的幻想;另一个看法则认为这令人感到恐惧,这是试图让我们自己免于失去爱,让我们免于作出承诺,免于负责,也免于受伤。也许就是这样的。


    (边写文章,我边在听HOUSE—一个女人对她的新情人,一位医生说“我让你自由。我可以照顾自己……我希望你好好照顾自己)

    所有这些在我脑海中发生的自我争辩,也是就是问题的关键。我需要学会放手,不要畏惧去做一个真正的人,真正的自我,或在真实的世界里。不要惧怕与人亲近和担负责任。我要勇敢。不再逼迫自己太紧。


    我需要时间好好考虑。我其实思维很慢。

    或者也许是我想太多了。也许我所缺少的是详细的论据。也许我想多而做少。在我能决定我到底属于哪里之前,也许我不得不尝试不再去多想。


    也或者我需要把我自己反锁在实验室里,学习生物学,然后发明一种气体,覆盖整个地球,然后全世界的妇女都会怀孕。或者也可以发明一种肉,这世界上最好吃的肉,但是它上可以在试管里边长出来的,在任何人的花园里都可以长出来。这样,世界上的动物就可以免受屠宰场中的暴行与不幸,不会再有饥饿。


    如果不是理念村,那又是什么?

    我不知道。我只知道,它无关乎政治和社会改革,或者自由市场,无关乎新的技术或革命,更不是唯心论。我们几万年来做了很多这样的事情,但我们只是把事情搞的更糟糕。我知道,我们没有退路,我知道没有开化的原始人,我知道历史告诉我们很多教训,但没有告诉我们怎样才是正确的生存方式



    当我能更了解我自己一点,当我能知道我到底是谁然后开始微微察觉到我所属何方时,也许我会得到一些讲的通的答案和可能性。如果到那时候,你一定是第一个知道的人。