Mission & Goals


“To create and expand a global network of community land as a living laboratory for applied hunter-gatherer culture and the regeneration of landscapes necessary to support it.”

Goals (derived from mission statement)

  1. To liberate land from the monoculture system by purchasing properties to protect with land conservation trusts
  2. To shift human-centric lansdcapes to regenerative and diverse wild ecosystems with permaculture nudges.
  3. To replace reliance on things and technology with earth skills.
  4. To remove ourselves from the industrial food systems.
  5. To remove ourselves from the economy based on abstract measures of value.
  6. To replace complex technologies with DIY tools individuals can make themselves.
  7. To shift human social existence from agricultural norms to hunter-gatherer norms.
  8. To remember that “feral” is not wild. This will always be a process. Success will require generations.

This is a wiki. Collaboration is welcome.

1 Like

To play devil’s advocate: A year later, are you still happy with the mission and goals and how they are worded? Is there anything that can be added, removed, worded differently, or simplified?

1 Like

Always room for improvement. The more voices the better.

This sounds fair to me. There are surely going to be issues with particular items for some properties, but as long as everyone keeps item 8 in mind and at least strive to attain the majority of these goals I don’t see why most people can’t accept this. But I’ve been wrong before!

Edit to add: I’m not one to get picky about wording/phrasing too early. Just start connecting people & properties…the words can change over time. Build an MVP and fine-tune the message based on first trials.

1 Like

This hasn’t really changed in 5 years. I tweaked some language for simplicity today.

It’s a wiki though. Further improvements welcome.

What does everybody think about adding a section about the benefits to the childrearing process, or is this too far off topic? My main concern is for the next generation. In descending order of importance, I want my son and my friends’ children:

  1. To grow up within a nurturing community
  2. To grow up in nature, and experience the sounds, sites, and rhythms of the land that I believe are necessary for proper human development
  3. To become “teachers” early in their lives, benefiting their sense of purpose and belonging while helping those slightly younger than them learn about the world around them (and incidentally making parenting much less stressful)
1 Like

I agree with adding goals about passing down said knowledge and information. It is not simply enough for us to want pursue this path ourselves if this push dies with us. We need to instill these values in younger generations. We are certainly not wild as you say but feral but in a few generations we could be raising children that are more feral than we can be today and move in the right direction. However, if we do not teach them the knowledge may also die with us as well. In order to continue our work we need to teach younger individuals the benefits and importance of belonging to the earth and not the opposite way of thinking.

1 Like

Is there a way to condense that and/or adapt the language to encompass this?

The mission is broad strokes. Also, we don’t want to make it all about kids and parents. Those who choose not to (or can’t) have children shouldn’t be alienated.

It might actually be a good idea to alienate those that decided to add to the overpopulation problem by selfishly bringing children into a collapsing paradigm. It’s just a sign of a mentality that I see as contradictory to the goals of the project. It’s kind of like letting short kids on the basketball team. Everyone’s getting set up for disappointment. Maybe once the network of nodes is established, and there’s actually a community and sustainable environment capable of raising healthy kids, we should start intentionally procreating again?

Wow. I was not expecting that, @Ernesto!

Even in that view (which I don’t share), it’s not an argument for alienating those who decided to have sex and didn’t flawlessly execute the birth control strategies they decided to use. I don’t think those decisions or skills correlate with anything meaningful to the project.

The world would be a much better place if people saved bumping uglies for intentional procreation with tribal consent.

I can’t see how the current sexual trends can ever to lead to sustainability or peace, regardless of other cultural changes.

As I get older and gain more experience, I see more of the solid reasoning behind traditional values that I once thought were based solely upon superstition and adherence to religious psyops. Often, the logical reasons have been lost over the years, but they’re usually there if one cares to look.

Kids also complicate things legally, in the US at least. The powers that pretend to be have more mechanisms in place to ensure that kids stay stuck in the system, so allowing them at nodes increases risk at many levels.

I don’t mean to insult anyone, but I just haven’t heard a satisfactory argument for bringing more kids into this paradigm, and have noticed traits in people that have decided to procreate anyway that tend to make me want to steer clear of them.

I’ve also found that I’m getting more and more surly as my species has disappointed me over the years, and most kids are just like their parents, annoying as hell. lol!

If I remember correctly, the Federation of Egalitarian Communities (FEC) communities require approval for babies. If you reproduce without prior approval, I believe it’s a potential reason for removal from the community. I think it follows the general thinking that all members must be approved on their own, and there are no loopholes for sneaking in family members.

Those are all interesting conversations. I think the FEC gets a fair bit of heat for it. But I think people in this thread are talking about already existing humans. As such, I would propose moving discussion on how membership and conception interact to a thread specifically dedicated to that.

To the extent that children already exist in the world, they should be considered as individual humans. And the FEC logic about all family members needing to be accepted as individuals is wise. I’m not at all suggesting that family members should choose to abandon anyone. But if only 2 of 3 people in a family aren’t a good fit, then the family as a whole might not be a good fit.

Again, I propose these discussions be moved to another thread.

I also support the idea of recognizing and encouraging transmission of knowledge and values to children. I think that excluding folks along those lines alone is a bad idea.

1 Like