Envisioning an Intentional Socio-ecological Community, Part 1

Exploring reasons for joining an intentional community

Recap/update

Regular readers are aware that the overall theme of my work is centered on exploring, understanding, and explaining our human story, in conjunction with considering how we might eventually create a resilient, sustainable future. Of course, we face the reality that each day the prospects for achieving such an optimistic goal continue shrinking.

In the previous 37 postings I’ve presented an overview of evolutionary history, including homo sapiens’ symbiotic interconnections with all biotic organisms—plants, animals, microorganisms, and fungi. This amazing "web of life" is the result of essential biotic functions in creating and maintaining ecological balance.

Beginning with this post, I plan a series related to intentional communities (IC), beginning here with why anyone should consider what these communities have to offer for anyone seeking a potentially resilient and sustainable way of living. Hence, it seems appropriate to begin with considering “why” living in an intentional community might be an idea worth pursuing.

Why consider living in an intentional community?

The main motivation for socio-ecologically oriented folk is a deep concern regarding preparation for what is expected to be a very challenging future. Enticed with the possibility of developing a resilient, sustainable lifestyle, a growing number of people are seeking a community of like-minded people interested in living together, for purposes addressed herein.

The driving common motivation for achieving and living in a sustainable community is a profound concern about the increasing fragmentation and breakdown of civil society and the bio-ecosphere. Some experts suggest that our socioecological predicament can be attributed to the past 10,000-years of a sociocultural worldview founded on un-scientific, irrational premises (beliefs) that have gradually eroded the symbiotic connections humans once had with the web of life. In short, we are a species existing out of our evolutionary context, a mismatch when compared with the way hunter-gatherers lived sustainably for at least 200,000 years. In fact, some isolated contemporary indigenous groups also manage to live sustainably within wild ancestral territories.

Anthropologists’ findings indicate that hunter-gatherers remained physically active, consumed naturally wild food sources, were exposed and more adaptable to diverse microbes and pathogens, and suffered more from acute than chronic forms of stress, as when facing a threatening predator. In contrast, we moderns suffer numerous health issues, as evidenced by increasing obesity, heart disease, allergies and autoimmune diseases, mental health issues, and even osteoporosis, tooth decay, and decreasing sperm quality.

According to notable authorities, the sociocultural foundations largely responsible for fostering our current unsustainable paradigm are civilizational developments of patriarchy, hierarchy, and dominant cultural narratives.

As a sociocultural system, patriarchy’s control over society has helped drive environmental destruction and resource exploitation, gender inequality and exploitation, population growth, devaluation of bio-ecological systems, and cultural insensitivity to indigenous knowledge and views. Based on such harmful socioecological effects, patriarchy is considered the cause of human hubris, a patriarchal narrative identifying humans as the most intelligent species, divinely ordained to rule over the Earth and its many non-human inhabitants.

Hierarchy, a close companion of patriarchy, is a social system that ranks individuals and groups according to some order of authority or status, with a preferred social group dominant over others. An extreme example is the traditional caste system in India. Environmentally, the beings most affected are those living in the lower echelons of society. As we’re experiencing in the U.S., extremely-rich elites are currently enjoying the top of the societal power structure and increasingly controlling society. As owners, investors, and leaders of mega corporations and real estate holdings, they wield inordinate influences in technological innovations, and, of course, with government and economic policies.

For one example, how could we exist without benefiting from Elon Musk’s estimated 38-billion dollars of government funding for his high-tech companies, Tesla and Space X? Or what about his mystifying worldviews, including magical pipe dreams of conquering space, ostensibly by sending millions of people to Mars and beyond? For certain, much of the ongoing environmental degradation can be attributed to the growing power of techno-optimistic oligarchs who ignore the negative byproducts (externalities) generated by their endorsed overconsumption of non-renewable materials.

Perhaps the most dangerous dominant cultural narrative is that of anthropocentricism, the belief that humans are the center of everything on Earth, perhaps even within the universe. We lack deep humility and wisdom, duo prerequisite virtues for placing humans within the proper evolutionary context required for sustainable living.

This particular human-centered narrative accounts for our apparent inability to accept the reality that our numbers far exceed the possibility for our species to continue living within the finite carrying capacity of our planet, which we are far exceeding at the rate of 1.75 earths annually. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, our combined human biomass at 34%, and our domestic-animal biomass at 62%* represents 96% of total mammal biomass, leaving a measly 4% of wild mammals. These figures contrast drastically with the 1% of human biomass as hunter-gatherers!

The totality of all worldview narratives helps explain how the deeply-ingrained sociocultural belief in human exceptionalism, when combined with the discovery and application of fossil-energy fuels to power society, propelled humanity on a pro-growth trajectory requiring the ongoing extraction and processing of limited natural materials, including rare minerals. And now our planet home is overwhelmed with the detritus of our superorganism’s ravenous appetite, with ongoing transmission of toxic elements into the air, water, soil, and all lifeforms.

Pro-growth economic motives and population growth

I don’t wish to disturb readers with what may be considered “bad news”, but I do so because I believe an informed public requires the freedom and willingness to discuss any and all topics, preferably in a civil, rational manner. I mention this because I find it disheartening that, not only average citizens, but many well-informed environmentalists refrain from discussing the all-important human population issue. Why? Ostensibly, because of circulating misunderstandings, misinformation, and disinformation, plus fears of losing donations from disgruntled supporters.

I emphasize the issue of population growth simply because humanity is the primary driver of the developing global polycrisis, which includes at least ten interconnected, converging crises. Some pundits predict these combined crises may well lead to the disintegrative collapse of civilization and the biosphere, what some refer to as The Great Unraveling, which is leading to The Great Simplification. In sum, our current human predicament may be attributed to three factors associated with human-driven material growth: 1) overpopulation; 2) overconsumption; and 3) overproduction of toxic waste products.

I bring the topic to the forefront of public attention because it’s a matter of acknowledging and appreciating the power of simple math. This includes accepting the reality that the number of people inhabiting the Earth corresponds to the amount of consumed finite natural materials and resultant waste products.

When I was born (1937), the global population was around 2.2 billion. Currently, in 2025, our numbers have crossed the 8-billion threshold to attain 8.23 billion. According to the most recent UN projections, we could number 10.3 billion by 2080s. After that date, forecasting becomes more challenging, since no one can predict with any certainty the potential hazards ahead.

This is why I agree with socioecological colleagues who are convinced that the key long-term strategy for assuring the survival and possible replenishment of Earth’s remaining flora and fauna species will involve a much-lower human population, according to some experts between one to three-billion, with everyone enjoying a lifestyle similar to the average present-day European.

While some are convinced the multiple crises we’re perpetrating will inhumanely reduce population, others believe that it’s possible to reduce population using intentional humane strategies and policies, notably safe birth-control measures and sex education. (Non-profit organizations like Population Balance provide substantive information and humane solutions.) As population numbers decrease, so too will consumption of Earth’s finite resources and resultant waste products, including pollution of air, water, and soil.

The formula I=PAT, as proposed by Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren in the early 1970s, provides a way to calculate humankind’s overall impact on the ecosphere. IPAT represents the four principal factors that help explain our developing ecological crises. Thus, Impact (effects) = (the result of) Population (size) x Affluence (consumption) x Technology. Hence, population is the main driving factor, effectively amplifying per-capita consumption of products and the resource input/output of the technologies used.

In sum, a good-news scenario would be the cessation of population growth and an evidential trend that our expanding human superorganism is slowly diminishing—and the bio-ecosphere rejuvenating. Unfortunately, in the time it takes to reach a sustainable level on our besieged planet, it may be too late. Waiting for the “powers that be”—the politicians and governments, the corporations and extremely wealthy elite—to act concertedly in facing a series of cascading socioecological threats increasingly seems like a failing strategy.

Wrap up

The topics discussed above are meant to explain why humanity has unwittingly managed to dismantle much of the Earth’s life-sustaining materials that all lifeforms depend upon for survival. A breaking point is approaching, and the goal should be to “bend, not break”. Whether this happens depends on galvanizing a sufficient subset of wise humans to steer society on a more resilient and sustainable future path, which at the current rate suggests fewer people living in fewer habitable regions. It’s too late to return to our pre-techno-industrial mode of living, but not too late to mitigate and adapt as best we can.

The reason for this exploration of intentional communities is to present an optional way of living within a supportive community of like-minded, well-intentioned people in as resilient and sustainable manner as possible. Diversity may be a desirable quality overall, but when it comes to worldviews, it helps to have friends and colleagues who share a set of life-supporting values.

Next time we’ll explore the types and forms of intentional communities, some you’ve probably never considered, and some you might begin contemplating for your future or for those you love. I hope so. I’m quite sure that, were I at least three decades younger, I would be exploring the type of community I envision. You probably expect me to share my vision, and I wouldn’t want to disappoint you. So, yes, I will definitely outline the type of intentional community I would like to be a part of in what promises to be a very challenging future.

Please bear with me . . .