Couples based techno-Amish type community

Been thinking about the division of tasking for a couples based techno-Amish type community;

Wood Energy$, Hunting, Fishing, Trapping$, Security

Dairy Goats$, Chickens$, Gardening$, Foraging, Health

The dollar sign means the activity could hopefully provide an income for the group(for instance the DNR allows fur trapping as a commercial activity whereas hunting/fishing/plant foraging bag limits can’t be sold). hmm, meat has the most built-in redundancy- do I owe apologies to all the vegans out there? :slight_smile:

forgot to mention- any critique of this structure would be much appreciated.

As best I am aware, unless environmental conditions are harsh (ie: arctic or sub-arctic), most communities seem to do the best without a gendered division of labour. Some women, for example, may be excellent trackers while some men may have the magic touch with domestic beasts. It is when environmental conditions require that two people are necessary for an economic unit (ie: one person cannot do all the work necessary to stay alive) that gendered divisions of labour are useful.

Other than that, why create a community where individuals are discouraged or prohibited from doing what they do best if they’re the wrong sex?

Hello and thanks for the thoughtful response. I thoroughly enjoy different perspectives regarding these topics. For the sake of argument, let’s assume there will be explicit central planning involved(as you said- encouraging or discouraging the behavior of individuals) in the community. What are the natural hierarchies/sources of authority necessary to thrive in nature? I’m guessing it would start with a tribal system with some force of nature such as the seasonal changes at the top. Tribalism seems to have been first toppled by the Christian notion of the isolated family unit. Christ at the head, then the father, mother, children. Either naturally derived or elite driven, it’s had a 2000 run they say and for the most part tamed much of humanity in the name of brining civilization (Version1.0). It seems (V2.0) will be a religion of social justice and sustainable development(two things they can keep a religion going with for a very long time—what would Christianity had been without the invented concept of sin?; but 2.0 is still serving the larger human domestication agenda and being ran by the same very powerful network of elites- they have the gift of putting aside their differences and cooperating in the name of something bigger than themselves-at the moment a push for globalism. I don’t think it’s a chaotic free for all or a cult that will die with the charismatic leader–they attend meetings that we all hear about, put forward ideas, reach consensus, submit their egos to the ironed out plan, and then deploy whatever resources are necessary. If the entire globe is ever cataloged and controlled, I think its game over for anyone wishing to have a try at a more feral life… as much as it was for the pagans during the many inquisitions. On our homestead for example, the Co. bureaucracy alone could shut us down over so many things-- permits/insurance issues for our three woodburning ovens, planning and zoning violations for this outbuilding or that- dogs not penned up- taxes, it gets worse every year.

It just seems their “community” is winning through organization and cooperation while at the same time brainwashing us to despise hierarchies but to love the notion of egalitarianism… All that hippy commune stuff, no rules just an empty sand box to play around in—surely nature and mankind have worked out rules of the games during our first million years.

As far as your comments go. I think it starts in the mind and it is an extremely harsh environment for any post-modern person trying to make this change. The battlefield is as simple as a button. I doubt most westerners even mend their own clothes at this point. The Amish do but only because someone in authority told them to keep making their own clothes even when they have the means to buy them via free trade routes. Feral culture questions if the clothes are even necessary in the first place, I guess :).

I’m guessing the sexes have evolved over millions of years to be perfectly compatible and to have an almost synergistic effect on each other. The fact that men and women don’t exactly know what they are supposed to do in a tribe or not probably means we truly are a species with amnesia, domesticated beyond repair, or cursed by an ability for too much cognitive abstraction.

1 Like

Your point about our hesitancy to organize is an excellent one. I think our only chance is organizing unofficially and organically under a shared set of ideals and morals. I think these ideals and morals should be developed and honed by an anonymous, decentralized, group of people that actually strive to live independently of civilization’s slavery systems. Those with solely academically informed opinions haven’t earned the right to waste others’ time.

The open internet and corporate sites are not appropriate forums for this. At a minimum, those of us that care need to decide on a decentralized, encrypted communications platform that people get invited to only after being personally vetted at a workshop/festival/rite of passage type event that weeds out those aren’t physically and mentally adapted to be useful in the current challenge. I’m going to be hosting an event in AZ very soon and will post info here, at @proto.tribal on instagram until they ban me again, and I started a private telegram channel that I share with potential tribe once we’ve met in person.

As far as the gender roles thing goes, I’ve found that a natural life steers everyone towards the role that they’re best adapted to. Being the bunch of civilizationally dysevolved mutants that we are, it’s all up in the air for now. Post-civ life will present challenges to future relationships and how we adapt to those challenges will determine the gender roles of the future, and really, whether or not humanity has a future at all.


To me, ‘natural’ and ‘hierarchy’ are two mutually exclusive terms. I don’t see anything organized hierarchically in nature. Maybe I’m not seeing how you’re framing your question. I really see a wide world of cooperation and collaboration, and I think humans do better when the social systems allow us to do the same. In which case, there are cultural values that human communities can prioritize which will help them survive longer (such as collaboration and cooperation).

If I’m understanding correctly your analysis, I think that Christianity was lost since Constantine adopted it as the official religion of the Roman Empire. At which point, Christianity became an apologist for violence and coercion. Sure, you can still get some loving Christians - but when the choice is ‘convert to Christianity and join us OR die’, that’s a huge betrayal of Christian values.

In terms of clothes, well, I live in the sub-Arctic and I like my warm winter clothes. You go ahead and take yours off if you like, I won’t stop you. :wink:

Other than child-bearing, as far as I am aware, there is no sex-specific behavioural trait that is universal among humans. Which is to say: somewhere on the planet, anything someone has declared ‘naturally male’ or ‘naturally female’ is disproven because someone from the opposite sex will do it.

I think you’re on the right track, so to speak, and I think that we WILL organize unofficially and organically because how else can we do it?

Where I disagree with you is allowing any common ideals or morals to be ‘developed’ by anyone. We’re all good people, our values and ideals are already bringing us here, we’ll figure out how to make decisions together when we need to. Right now it all feels pretty theoretical & abstract; I don’t see a lot of decision-making going on in this group.

And as far as ‘weeding people out’, mmmmmm, sounds like you’re into setting up an elite group right there. You go right ahead, mate! I don’t think I’d pass your test (I’m likely too old and not impressed enough with young men) and the most capable bush-women I know are older as well. For myself, I think I’m going to just swim with the plebes and do my best to contribute to my community’s well-being for the long term.

Yah, I agree with you that natural life steers people towards the role that they’re best suited for. That’s the reason I think avoiding rigid gender roles contributes more towards any community’s long-term survivability than any other set-up.

I would frame it as you are a conservative minded person advocating for maintaining tradition(to include fluid gender roles) and quite possibly are opposed to change in general whereas I’m more liberal minded and open to new ideas- such as adopting hierarchies in the spirit of self-defense.

Fixating on gender relations is a red herring.

The point is strong groups are harder to liquidate via Agenda 21 and all the other nonsense coming down the pike than atomized but paradoxically also #empowered individuals. So are groups embedded with a lot of hierarchy hamstrung or unbreakable? This is being asked from the perspective of a mammal who came out of the womb really not knowing who is friend or foe.

Too many chiefs and not enough Indians comes to mind. Tecumseh from what I understand concluded that he could only fight organization with organization- and rode from the Great Lakes to Florida trying to put together a confederacy very similar to the one he was being beaten by.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and I hope you have an nice week ahead. We just received some much needed rain here so life is good. The heirloom tomatoes are just starting to come in and squirrel season opens in 5 days.

How interesting that hierarchy is being framed as ‘liberal’ and ‘open-minded’ - when you yourself are pointing out the centuries of Christian hierarchy which have passed behind us. Centralized leadership and hierarchy are the ultimate expression of conventional and conservative to me and I suppose your idea of a gendered hierarchy reflects that.

What I am trying to communicate is that the machine of state-based civilization will overcome any notion of self-defense on the part of people trying to escape its clutches. In fact, it occurs to me that establishing a group of people with their own centralized leadership and heavy defenses is establishing a competitor to the state as it exists. In which case, the state (any state) will use its resources to eradicate its competitor, because states consider themselves to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Remember that guerilla fighters never lose a war. They may not win - but they never lose.

But you go ahead, I’m going to step aside from your upcoming confrontation with armed power now.

Glad you got some rain! For us, we’ve been having sunshine and warmer temperatures, and the plants were hungry for that. So we’re both pleased with the weather. :slight_smile: Be well!

I didn’t see any suggestion towards armed confrontations, just thoughts of organizing under a common love for Nature so we can increase our chances of adapting to the future.

As far as “elitist” goes, I prefer to let Nature set the standards for participation. Surviving symbiotically with Nature on a planet infested by parasites that are hell bent on destroying themselves and everything else just isn’t something that average people can do. The dysevolution caused by domestication is too strong. The nature of the lifestyle simply requires that people be able to move, think, work, and exist self sufficiently. There are no handicap ramps in the forest, no places to buy insulin, no way to process chemical/drug infested human waste safely, etc. This is why you don’t see sickly or overweight hunter gatherers very often. It’s not elitism. It’s survival.

I think you and CTR are on the same page as far as hierarchy goes, just confusion due to text. There is hierarchy throughout the natural world. The secret to making human hierarchies sustainable and peaceful is keeping them well under Dunbar’s Number to prevent anonymity, and basing the structure of them upon merit and earned respect, not bloodlines, religious edict, violence, or coercion.

Yeah, that makes sense to me Linnea.

When it comes to what the state uses its power to incentivize - all roads seem to lead to depopulation.

Lots of people and pollution helped nation states win real resource wars but a cooperative global elite could fake the existential threat for a lot cheaper- like in the Orwell book-to save precious resources for their own offspring.

An interesting test of civilization will be when they go live with the automization of truck/delivery driving and the fast food industry.

I’m guessing that makes up an enormous percentage of the US population and just shoving them into the almighty “STEM” fields to support the technology that replaced them is laughable.

Just for the record- I disavow all violence and ridged gender roles while on the internet.

The attached video really sums up for me what I think you mean by machine based civilization. These men are like the mermaids affixed to the prow of a ship- good looking strawmen but not behind a wheel. The problem may be that most of the human population is genetically confined to needing this. Whether it’s daddy picking you off the ground after scraping a knee, the tribal chief in the middle tent of a circle of tents, or the big daddy in the sky called god. The healthy situation is probably when the tribal chief gets too big for his britches you know where he lives and can exile or kill him. The state-based machine system is nothing more than hiding who he is or where he lives. To add insult to injury- democracy shields them further- when the fruit of their bad policies are noticed(inflation/planned obsolescence/environmental destruction/etc.) they take no blame because we “voted” for it- or at least our ignorant neighbor. These people are experts at using the mass man to accomplish whatever they desire- tricks probably learned during the Neolithic. Today seems a domination of the merchant class. Supposedly a corporation can censor the president- is this the state eliminating a competitor as you say? So art and everything else follows suite. Could be as simple as Bezos looks at his workforce and says if it is sick and fighting, the less able it is to unionize and demand more from me. This mindset views people littering as a good thing because it can find an abstract way to charge for the cleanup --whereas I’m hoping normal people see widespread littering as a tragedy.

Anyway, I like you’re thoughts about staying out of their way and living in the cold is a great start. They are too pampered to spend much time bothering you up their I’d imagine. I just can’t agree that hierarchy is bad or repressive in and of itself. … it is just another human technology like language and all the rest.