I can see how they resemble each other, superficially. To differentiate them, I'm going in what may seem an unrelated direction. Please indulge me.If I understand you correctly, you're proposing a kind of camp site/RV park that functions as a test lab/school? (We talked about something very similar for the ERE RV Park back in 2012 or so, also the ERE Survival School or something to that effect)
History is replete with examples of emergence being forced. Let's try an example you would understand better than I. Jet Propulsion Laboratories was such an example from before I was born (I have no opinion as to whether it still is). In the 50's and 60's radical change/advancement came out of JPL, I expect the discovery channel still shows documentaries about it.I have personally lost some interest in trying to define it intellectually (been there done that) and organize it socially (not for me). I've gone back (or forward) to throwing mud on the wall. I'm not sure "emergence" can be forced.
There was a congregation of academics at JPL. As a former academic, yourself, I expect you have some insight into the reasons so many academics left other potentially prestigious positions for JPL. Maybe we could list them, together? I'll start (in no particular order):
1. JPL was new. This was a chance to start something, to get in on the ground floor.
2. JPL was doing something. There was a chance to see one's ideas translated into reality.
3. The combination of 1 and 2 attracted the fresh minds attracted to the relatively high IQ life that academia provides, but put off by the entrenched bureaucracy of academia. "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." JPL was a chance to play for real stakes.
4. JPL was doing culturally approved work. It was vaguely patriotic to work on secret projects for the government. In a modernist society, this plays more favorably outside of academia. Academics have social networks that extend outside of academia, and could find this useful at the time.
5. I assume it paid better than the wages available in academia, but this is speculation on my part.
Can you think of others I missed?
No, I am not. And I wouldn't be bringing this up here, if I thought you were such a person. TBH if such a person were to show up, I would probably be the first to encourage him to hit the bricks. I don't want him, nor the niche he would be trying to create for himself. This is the leader/follower solution. It was appropriate technology for centuries, as was bureaucracy.The problem (challenge?) with such a centralized approach is that it requires finding that one person who is willing to start and relentlessly drive the project until it has enough momentum to sustain itself. You're basically looking for a person who is an entrepreneur, promoter, community organizer, and host rolled into one. That someone also needs to be willing and capable of working for free and engage in an uphill battle for a long time to realize such a project. Are you that person?
But it is 2024. That time ended decades ago.
Culture is inherently conservative. This makes it slow. Technology changed, culture will take time to catch up. This signals opportunity, to me.
Coordination is ultimately an information problem. Bureaucracy is an industrial age adaptation to scale up iron age coordination solutions (Leadership).
We haven't created many information age coordination solutions yet.
I contend that information problems in the early 21st century are software problems. This thread has examples already linked.
Jacob, we've been talking past each other for 18 months. This would be so much faster in a synchronous communications medium.
I agree, this is the crux of the problem. Ultimately, I think it is beyond us to solve.I think if you build something that is cool, it will attract people. The hardest part of shit like this is: 1) attracting the right people and 2) managing inevitable conflicts because you're shirking the rules of conventional society that "most people" "mostly" understand.
It's a problem as old as orgies. How do you get the right people, who will participate, who are not going to manipulate or sexually assault people?
The key is to create environments that allow us to fail forward. This means creating environments that allow for safe failures, iterative improvements, communications of success and failures, and means of easily adopting different paths.
I would like my camping club to be one such environment.
I am watching. Here and his other sites. Though I spend far, far less time online in retirement, and have fallen behind. AH has strengths I lack, I'm fascinated.Also, @AH is basically doing this in the desert in California.
At one point, I created a thread for reasons people should NOT move to Washington state.I am interested in doing this in New Orleans.
viewtopic.php?t=4240
None of those reasons have gone away.
People should live wherever makes them happy, and most people will not be happy living in a land of rain, mists, fogs, and rot.
But if I solve for the "right people" problem here, would the means of solving that problem not also help you solve for the same problem in NO? Does that not give you (and others with similar ambitions) incentive to help me solve my "right people" problem?
I don't know where you were for Katrina. The 2011 quake in Japan generated an huge Tsunami. Important because Japan has lots of cameras. One can find many, many videos of the experience, from many perspectives. Add in very high winds, and the objects flying in those winds, I don't think "floats" is nearly enough. Last I heard, the French Quarter is 11 feet lower than when it was built.what comes to mind is make something easily moveable or that floats
We all choose our risks. I wish you good luck with your choices.