Wanderlust: 10 things they got right and wrong about community living

I was really looking forward to watching Wanderlust, the new movie about a harried NYC couple (played by Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston) who end up living in a hippie commune called Elysium.  It was inevitable I would see this movie, having traveled to around 40 “communes” in the early 90s studying children and education for my graduate thesis, living in about a dozen (including Findhorn and Auroville) and now directing Living Routes, which runs college programs in “ecovillages” around the world.  My wife and co-adventurer, Monique, and I just returned from the theater where we both laughed harder and longer than with any movie in recent memory.  Granted, Wanderlust is a comedic spoof of communal life with over-the-top stereotypes and clichés, but the crew did their homework (at a 30-year-old commune in the North Georgia Mountains called Earthsong) and much – although not all – of Elysium rang surprisingly true.

What they got right:

  1. Communities are going strong.  In the production notes, Alan Alda (who plays Carvin, the community’s founder) said he was surprised when he “looked up communes and found out that they actually still exist, except now they call them ‘intentional communities…. I thought these places were just a thing of the ’60s and ’70s, but apparently they are still common.” Damn straight!  The Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC) lists close to 2,000 communities in the U.S. alone and the Global Ecovillage Network lists over 500 self-identified “ecovillages” around the world.  These are communities creating models for how to live well and lightly in a post-oil world.
  2. There are no utopias. Perhaps because of their emphasis on caring and support, communities often attract “characters”.  Our personal baggage doesn’t magically disappear in community. There’s an old Japanese saying that says a good way to wash potatoes is to put them in a large pot of water and shake.  Simply by rubbing against each other, they clean each other.   It is inspiring to witness people get a little rounder and less edgy through rubbing against others in community.
  3. They are experimental.  From permaculture to polyamory, communities often think outside the box.  While many communities are open to various models of non-monogamy, most do so with more wisdom than is displayed at Elysium.  The movie was spot on, however, in that some couples join community at least partially because the guy is attracted to a polyamorous lifestyle, but it is often the gal who ends up wanting to stay.
  4. Living in community transforms lives.  Jennifer Aniston said, “We shot for three months, but I wanted this to go on for 10 years. We had an incredible amount of fun, and it just kept getting better.”  I’m sure much of this had to do with the wonderful cast, but I suspect some was also due to “playing in community” together.  Humans evolved as social animals and intentional communities offer opportunities to reawaken to our “tribal roots”.  This experience is often an epiphany for those of us who grew up without a deep sense of belonging or community.
  5. Undisturbed home births are possible.  Okay, I have to add this.  Monique is a midwife and was thrilled to see a portrayal of birth other than a woman screaming in a hospital.  In fact, our youngest daughter, Pema, was born at home, underwater, and unassisted and it was a wonderfully peaceful experience that you can see a bit of here.  Monique tells me it is also healthier to not cut a baby’s umbilical cord at least until the the cord has stopped pulsing and delivering oxygenated blood.  A few women (like the character Almond in the movie) do wait until the cord naturally dries up and falls off (this is called a Lotus Birth), but this is done for spiritual rather than medical reasons.

What they got wrong

  1. Community members do work.  In the movie, folks spent most of their time playing music and smoking pot.  While community members do have a lot of fun and often enjoy more leisure time than in mainstream society, it is also a lot of work to keep things running and drug use is not nearly as prevalent as one might think.
  2. Communities have moved way beyond encounter groups.  It was frankly embarrassing and a bit sad to watch the “Truth Circle” at Elysium where members were encouraged to vent and rage with little facilitation or support.  This is an area where communities have evolved beyond both the 60s and mainstream culture.  Many are doing cutting edge work with regards to transpersonal psychology, health and well-being, and inclusive forms of governance.
  3. Communities do have doors. Okay, truth be told, I did visit a community in Missouri once that had a two-seater outhouse where you never knew when someone might come in and sit next to you.  But in every other community I’ve ever visited or lived in, members have ample access to privacy (and doors).  I suspect this is even a stronger need in community than in mainstream society given the intensity of social interactions throughout the day.
  4. Communities are plugged in.  There is a common misconception that communities have cut themselves off from the “real” world.  While some isolationist communities may exist (and are, therefore, almost by definition hard to find), the vast majority are very connected to local and global issues.  They’re not escaping the real world, but rather trying to find more authentic and sustainable ways to engage with it.  Some communities such as Findhorn have become networking and informational hubs with over 30,000 people visiting each year.
  5. Communities have membership processes.  In the 60s and 70s, some estimate up to 100,000 communities formed in the U.S., and most did so very casually (e.g. “Hey folks!  My uncle has some land he said we could live on.  Let’s go!”).  Most of these communities burnt out quickly when difficulties arose and they had no way of creating group norms or processes to orient new members or ask anyone to leave.  Serious communitarians often left to create 2nd and 3rd generation communities where they could learn from their mistakes.  George and Linda were welcomed into Elysium on the spot, but nowadays, almost every community has formal membership (and exit) procedures and probation periods to protect and preserve what they have created. (Thanks Helen Sandy for reminding me of this 10th point!)

For more ways communities don’t conform to popular conceptions, I encourage you to read the FIC’s article on What’s True About Intentional Communities: Dispelling the Myths.  I also encourage you to go and see Wanderlust and let me know what you think.  Thanks for reading!

In community,
- Daniel

Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Four Reasons Why Ecovillages need Academia

How can we educate for a sustainable future?  How can we best engage students in gaining the inspiration, knowledge, and experience necessary to build more equitable, just, and ecological lifestyles for themselves, their communities and the planet?

In this blog series, I have explored these questions and why academia needs to utilize and help develop ecovillages as campuses for sustainability education.  To conclude this series, I’d like to turn the equation on its head and consider why ecovillages also need academia.

So far, I have offered the following nine comparisons:

Academia

Ecovillages

1. Conservative Experimental
2. Heirarchical Heterarchical
3. Competitive Cooperative
4. Fragmented Transdisciplinary
5. Proximal Intimate
6. Theoretical Applied
7. Secular Spiritual
8. Large Footprint Small Footprint
9. Problem Orientation
Solution Orientation

These may seem like nine arguments to run, not walk, away from traditional academia.  Okay, I do believe ecovillages represent our best available campuses in which to teach integrated sustainable community development.  In fact, this is why I founded Living Routes, which partners with UMass Amherst to offer college-level study abroad programs based in sustainable communities around the world.

Still, there’s no question we must teach about sustainability within all college and university settings.  In so doing, however, we must also recognize and make explicit to our students that what academia “says” and what it “does” are often quite different matters, especially with regard to this topic.   If we don’t at least address the cognitive dissonance in the left column above, students may come away confused, angry or worse, apathetic.

So, yes!  Let’s strive to make sustainability a core component of every college and university’s curricula and operations.  And, let’s acknowledge our challenges and limitations along with our efforts and successes.  And, let’s also reach out to ecovillages as more integrated models of what we are attempting to teach. Okay. ‘Nuf said.

Now, I want to look in the opposite direction and share four reasons why I believe ecovillages should also reach out to academia.

  1. Academia is the biggest game in town. In the U.S., higher education is approximately a $360 billion/year business.[1]  And this is not counting the trillions of dollars invested in facilities and endowments.  Almost 70% of high school graduates in the U.S. go directly to college.[2]  Nationwide, more than 20 million students are currently enrolled.[3]  Worldwide, there are over 150 million college students and this number continues to rise.[4]  If we want to have anything to do with higher education, colleges and universities are where the students and resources are!
  2. Academia is changing. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) represents a quickly growing network of faculty and staff within academia who “get it” and are actively working for positive change within their institutions.  With an increasing focus on internationalizing curricula, creating community partnerships, and implementing ecological design and interdisciplinary research, ecovillages are no longer seen as eccentric throw-backs to the 60s, but rather as leading edge sustainability innovators.  In addition, technology is creating new opportunities for collaboration, such as through an online course on ecovillage design offered in collaboration between Gaia Education and the Open University of Catalonia.[5]
  3. Ecovillages are R&D centers for appropriate technologies.  Sustainable solutions must be developed within real-world ecological, social, and cultural contexts if they are to succeed.  Ecovillages represent a network of potential field research sites for the development of integrated, community-scale systems such as active/passive solar, wind, composting toilets, water purification, alternative transport, even hydrogen fuel cells.  Through research programs and funding, colleges and universities could greatly support the further development and dissemination of these technologies.
  4. Ecovillages need help to reach their highest potential as campuses for sustainability education.  While programs offered through Living Routes and individual ecovillages are a good start, we are still in elementary school in terms of what is truly needed to educate professionals capable of building the institutions and systems required for a sustainable world to be possible.  We need to further collaborate with academia to create “communiversities” where students can spend years in ecovillages and related organizations to gain the background and skills needed to enter the workplace as professionals in fields as diverse as habitat restoration, sustainable agriculture, group facilitation, holistic health, ecological design, green building, and more.

College students represent a powerful leverage point in the world’s “Great Turning toward a more Ecological Age,” as Joanna Macy refers to it.[6]  These “emerging adults” are mature enough to ask the big questions yet are also open to radical alternatives such as those modeled within ecovillages. The world desperately needs leaders who are able to think—and act—outside of the box and today’s students are key to the generation of tomorrow’s paradigms and new ways of approaching local and global issues.

We are living in an amazing moment, not just in human history, but in planetary history.  We have exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity and must now transition to a post-oil world if we are to survive as a species.

It is possible to live lives that are both high quality and low impact.  I know this because I have seen thousands of people manifesting positive visions in ecovillages around the world.   While not utopias, these communities represent living laboratories, beta-test centers, and innovative campuses for learning how to live well and lightly together.  We have so much to learn from each other.  Building bridges between ecovillages and academia is literally building bridges to a more sustainable future.

Thanks for reading!  Please share your thoughts and questions in the comments below.

In community,
- Daniel

References

[1] Medlin, Lander, High Performance Facilities: Are we Embracing the Challenge of Sustainability,” delivered at the annual national conference of NACUBO, July 10, 2005. Text from “Campus Climate Footprint and Efforts to Reduce It,” by Julian Keniry, January 12, 2007.

[2] College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2010 High School Graduates (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

[3]  Higher Education – Institutions and Enrollment (U.S. Census Bureau 2012 Statistical Abstract)

[4] Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution
(An Executive Summary PDF Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, pg iv)

[5] Gaia Education and UOC Open University of Catalonia Campus for Peace and Solidarity.

[6] Joanna Macy and Her Work

(This series is adapted from my forthcoming chapter in “Localizing Environmental Anthropology: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillage Design for a Sustainable Future”, edited by Joshua Lockyer and James Veteto and published by Berghahn Books)
Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Why Academia Needs Ecovillages p.9: Problem vs Solution Orientation

Universities are very good at dissecting and analyzing “problems.” Environmental studies courses in particular often seem to be litanies of everything going wrong on the planet.  Of course, we need to study and better understand our impacts and the serious local and global issues facing us.  And … there comes a point when students “get it.”  After reading books, taking courses and writing papers, they need to do something or risk spiraling into negativity and despair. Or worse, many students have gone “uncomfortably numb” in an unconscious effort to defend their hearts against the seemingly insurmountable social and environmental problems facing humanity and the Earth. It just hurts too much to think about…

Ecovillages are creating new cultures and new “stories” in a post-carrying capacity world.  While not utopias, they tend to think differently about problems and offer unique campuses for sustainability education.  Reflecting on my previous eight posts in this series, compare the following “frames” or metanarratives of academia and ecovillages in how they often approach problems such as peak oil and climate change.

(note: these comparisons are extreme ends of a continuum and not black and white)
 

Academia

Ecovillages

Conservative
• Nothing will ever change anyway.  We should just go on with business as usual.
• We should trust the PhDs to solve these problems.
Experimental
• ”The problems we have can’t be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” – Albert Einstein
• Let’s just start and learn as we go.
Heirarchical
• I’m one person.  What can I do?
• It’s the ‘higher-ups’ responsibility to figure things out.  Not mine.
Heterarchical
• Everyone has a piece of the truth and nobody holds the whole truth.
• Power with, not power over!
Competitive
• Is this going to be on the exam?
• How will this help me get a job/tenure/grant?
Cooperative
• We’re all in this together. Let’s act like it.
• Many hands make light work.
Fragmented
• Where do we even start?  It’s too complicated.
• This is a problem for <another discipline>.
Transdisciplinary
• ”For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” — H. L. Mencken
• True solutions are integral & integrated.
Proximal
• I’m just trying to live my life.  I don’t have time for this.
• As long as it’s not in my backyard…
Intimate
• We all breath the same air and are fellow travelers on this Spaceship Earth.  Relationships are key!
• We need to think 7 generations ahead.
Theoretical
• Climate change is just a theory.  We need more evidence before acting.
• I think we have a subcommittee analyzing the problem.
Applied
• “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” – Gandhi
• “The only way to predict the future is to invent it.” – Alan Kay
Secular
• We can fix the planet through bio-engineering or nanotechnology.
• The world belongs to Man.  Oil is here for us to use.
Spiritual
• “I am part of the [planet] protecting itself.” – John Seed
• “We are on the brink of an evolutionary leap in consciousness.” – Sri Aurobindo
Large Footprint
• I want my MTV and like my campus’ <favorite amenity>.
• “Living large’ is a sign of having ‘made it’.
Small Footprint
• Live simply so others may simply live.
• Small is beautiful.

Archival photo from Sirius Community

Ecovillages offer students powerful opportunities to be a part of the solution and learn how they can make a positive difference in the world. Using energy generated from local windmills or photovoltaics, eating organic vegetables harvested from the land, living in homes built from local, natural materials, participating in communal celebrations, economies, and decision-making processes; these are all chapters within larger stories that ecovillages are writing about how we can live well and lightly together.  After spending time living and learning in an ecovillage, students can never again say, “It can’t be done.” because they have experienced doing it.  It then comes back to students to ask themselves, “What am I going to do? How can I make a difference in my own life and in my own community?”

Yes, there are big, scary problems facing humanity.  Take your pick: deforestation, climate change, peak oil, species extinction, overpopulation, social injustice and inequity… the list goes on.  We absolutely need to solve these problems in order to survive as a species and maintain a livable planet.

Yet, I don’t believe we will solve them from a place of fear.  We will only create a truly sustainable future from a place of love; through focusing on solutions and actions we can say “Yes!” to.  Sustainable cultures must be more attractive and more fun than our current lifetstyles or they won’t last.  Ecovillages are striving to lead this march and be pied pipers to a better world.

Next up (and the last in the series): “Why Ecovillages Need Academia”  Please share your thoughts, questions, and counter-arguments in the comments.  Thanks!

In community,
- Daniel

(This series is adapted from my forthcoming chapter in “Localizing Environmental Anthropology: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillage Design for a Sustainable Future”, edited by Joshua Lockyer and James Veteto and published by Berghahn Books)

Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Why Academia Needs Ecovillages p.8: Large vs. Small Footprint

A typical college classroom

A few days ago, I was on a college campus to offer an Info Session about Living Routes, which runs study abroad programs based in ecovillages around the world.  Seven students attended, but the room could fit 250.  The next day, I was amazed by all the new steel building construction at another university I last visited only six months ago!  And both of these schools are well known for their commitment to sustainability!

I’m looking forward to heading home to Sirius Community with its straw bale, cob, and local timberframe buildings.

We’re up to Part 8 of this blog series juxtaposing academia and ecovillages as campuses for sustainability education.  So, far, I have explored the following seven comparisons:

  1. Conservative vs. Experimental
  2. Heirarchical vs. Heterarchical
  3. Competitive vs. Cooperative
  4. Fragmented vs. Transdisciplinary
  5. Proximal vs. Intimate
  6. Theoretical vs. Applied
  7. Secular vs. Spiritual

And now for …

#8 Large vs. Small Footprint

Trinity College in Oxford, England

In order to be competitive, academic institutions not only have to offer top notch courses, but also a wide array of facilities and perks: spacious student housing, expanses of well-maintained lawns, and state-of-the-art student centers, classrooms, libraries, dining halls, and research facilities.  All of this comes at a high cost, not only to students, but to the environment as well.

To be fair, there are schools that “get it” such as the University of Washington with its hydropowered campus and only LEED Gold buildings, Green Mountain College which is carbon neutral and teaching fossil free farming, and Warren Wilson College with its 250-acre farm growing produce for the dining halls.  In addition, the Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System (STARS) developed by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) is helping schools gauge their progress towards sustainability.

For the most part, however, colleges and universities are still incredibly resource-intensive institutions and not very attentive to their impact on their region or the world.  Buildings are often made of concrete and steel and are not local, integrated or organic in any way.  Even recycling and compact fluorescents are recent phenomena on many campuses and very few even attempt to buy food locally, not to mention organically.  We can (and should!) teach about sustainability in these schools, but we should also recognize that students are often learning a very different lesson while walking around campus.

As previously noted (and hopefully implied by the word itself), ecovillages strive to live well, yet lightly.  Through sharing resources, conscious consumption, local food production, and renewable energy systems, ecovillages are creating models of low impact lifestyles.

For example, a study conducted in 2006 by the Sustainable Development Research Centre reported that the Findhorn Foundation, perhaps the world’s premier ecovillage, with around 450 residents on the north coast of Scotland, has an average ecological footprint of 2.71 gha per person (Tinsley and George 2006:4).  According to a Findhorn Press Release, this is “the lowest ecological footprint recorded for any permanent community ever measured in the industrialized world….  The average resident in the community consumes just one half of the resources and generates one half of the waste of the average citizen of the UK.” (Dawson 2007:1)

While certainly a wonderful achievement, it should also be noted that the 2.71 ha appropriated per Findhorn resident is just about the current average global per capita footprint of 2.70 ha and quite a bit above the 1.8 ha per capita of available world biocapacity. (WWF 2010:34). So, while ecovillages are striving towards Robert Gilman’s definition of “integrating harmlessly into the natural world” they still have a ways to go (Gilman 1991:10).

While many assume ecovillages aspire to self-sufficiency, this is rarely accurate. Most look to their bioregion or watershed as the unit of land and culture that should try to become more self-reliant. Ecovillages often serve as regional catalysts for reducing ecological impacts by supporting local initiatives such as organic agriculture and local distribution networks so resources do not have to be shipped long distances.

If we are, in fact, on the downslope of global oil – and energy – production, we can reasonably predict this will lead to wide-spread relocalization efforts due to rising transportation costs. Communities will increasingly need to concentrate more on local production of food, energy, and goods as well as the development of local governance, currencies, and cooperative cultures.

Students in Sirius' Community Center

Ecovillages are community responses to the pressures of climate change, fossil fuel depletion and economic contraction.  They are living laboratories striving towards high quality lifestyles, while maintaining relatively light footprints.  As such, they make ideal campuses for students to learn first-hand about sustainable community development and how we can all live in right relationship with our planet.

 

Next up: Last but not least … “Problem vs. Solution Orientation.”  Please add your thoughts and questions in the comments below.  Thanks!

In community,
- Daniel

References:

  • Dawson, Jonathan. “Scottish Community Scores Lowest Ecological Footprint Ever Recorded.”  Press Release (April 18, 2007): 1.
  • Gilman, Robert. “The Eco-village Challenge.” In Context: A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture (Summer, 1991): 10-17.
  • Tinsley, S. and George, H. (2006) Ecological Footprint of the Findhorn Foundation and Community. Moray. Sustainable Development Research Centre, UHI Millennium Institute.
  • WWF. Living Planet Report 2010: Biodiversity, biocapacity, and development. Gland, Switzerland, 2010.
(This series is adapted from my forthcoming chapter in “Localizing Environmental Anthropology: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillage Design for a Sustainable Future”, edited by Joshua Lockyer and James Veteto and published by Berghahn Books)

 

Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Why Academia Needs Ecovillages p.7: Secular vs. Spiritual

Living Routes students on Arunachula Mountain

“I had no idea how spiritual the program would be.  Honestly, if I knew before I went, I probably wouldn’t have gone.  But now, looking back, the focus on spirituality is what had the most meaning for me.”

A surprising number of Living Routes‘ alumni have told me something like this while sharing about their experiences on our ecovillage-based programs.  And each time, I wonder…

  1. What are we supposed to do this information?  ”Um… There’s something about the program we don’t want to share for fear it may scare you off, but trust me; you’re going to love it!” (FYI, we do share about it.  A lot.)
  2. What do these students even mean by “spiritual”?
  3. What does this comment say about the difference between academia and ecovillages as campuses for sustainability education?

So far, in this blog series, I’ve shared the following contrasts: 

  1. Conservative vs. Experimental
  2. Heirarchical vs. Heterarchical
  3. Competitive vs. Cooperative
  4. Fragmented vs. Transdisciplinary
  5. Proximal vs. Intimate
  6. Theoretical vs. Applied

Now, for one of my favorites:

7. Secular vs. Spiritual

“Spirituality” is a commonly misunderstood and dismissed term, especially in public universities where it is often perceived as airy-fairy, new-agey, mumbo-jumbo – the very antithesis of scientific rigor. Even Professors with a favorable view of spirituality often believe it is either too personal or inappropriate a subject to explore with students given their institution’s mandated separation of church and state.

Granted, the word means many things to many people, including new-agers and religious zealots.  What spirituality means at Living Routes, and I believe for our students, however, is a holistic, secular worldview divorced from any religious framework.  And it’s not just our students.  In a recent survey of 1,200 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% say they’re “more spiritual than religious.”

Rather than articulating a relationship with any particular faith system or divine entity, spirituality today seems more often about going beyond our materialistic culture and, as Robert C. Fuller said, “struggling with the issues of how our lives fit into the greater scheme of things.”  Personally, I define spirituality as the exploration of our inter-beingness with each other and our world.

Seen in this way, spirituality embodies some of the highest ideals of education (and life!) – creating meaning and developing qualities of responsibility, compassion, and love.

So, I am frequently disappointed that higher education does not embrace a more spiritual perspective.  On the contrary, most universities strive to separate our heads from our hearts—and typically only focus on our heads. Consequently, academia tends to support a Newtonian/Cartesian view of the universe as a soulless machine to be manipulated and controlled by humans.  This paradigm of the world as “other” inherently discounts our ecological relations and provided the basic rationale for the industrial revolution (and most wars).  How else could we do what we do to the planet and to other humans?

Fortunately, academia itself is pointing out the fallacy of this worldview.  From physics to chemistry; from biology to psychology, if there is anything the past century has taught us, it’s that John Muir was right.  “When we try to pick anything out by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” (Muir 1911:110).  It’s time we recognize that humanity is inextricably embedded within and dependent upon a web of relationships that we are not “in control” of.

The Matrimandir, next to a large banyan tree

So, how might ecovillages offer a more spiritual context and campus for sustainability education? Practices such as meditation and various forms of yoga are common features of many ecovillages and Living Routes programs. For example, at the very center of Auroville, a large international community in south India, sits the Matrimandir – a large meditation sanctuary.  This is not a place for religion or dogma.  It isn’t even a place for groups.  It’s a place for individuals (and students on our semester program in Auroville) to be silent and seek inner peace and wisdom. We also facilitate a 48-hour vision quest on this program to support students to deeply reflect on their relationships with themselves, each other, and the world.

More than these practices, however, it is by immersing in these learning communities within living communities that students learn to “be the change they wish to see.” While none of the ecovillages that host Living Routes programs are explicitly religious, most embrace a holistic, spiritual worldview. In these environments, it is natural to re-examine some basic assumptions about who we think we are in the world.  Members (and students) are supported to be “in process” and engaged with big life questions such as…

  1. “What do I believe?”
  2. “How did I come to believe it?”  And, perhaps most importantly,
  3. “What are my options?”

Ecovillages are innovating new “options”, new “stories” about living in right relationship with each other and the planet. “Trying on” these new ways of being — and belonging — is fundamentally a spiritual and transformative exercise.  This is a very difficult concept to convey through course syllabi, yet is what I believe most of our alumni remember as the most profound aspect of their programs.  I guess I should now make this blog post required reading for prospective Living Routes students to help them better understand what they’re getting into.

Next up: “Large vs. Small Footprint.”  Please add your thoughts and questions in the comments below.  Thanks!

In community,
- Daniel

References:

  • Muir, John. My First Summer in the Sierra. New York, 1911.
(This series is adapted from my forthcoming chapter in “Localizing Environmental Anthropology: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillage Design for a Sustainable Future”, edited by Joshua Lockyer and James Veteto and published by Berghahn Books)
Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , , , | 13 Comments

Why Academia Needs Ecovillages p.6: Theoretical vs. Applied

I have a confession to make.  If I had to blindly choose between two experienced candidates to teach a Living Routes‘ ecovillage-based program, one with an M.A. and the other a Ph.D., I might very well choose the one with the M.A.  While this preference does not win me many friends within conservative universities, I feel it reveals another core difference between academia and ecovillages as campuses for sustainability education.

So far, I have offered the following five comparisons:

  1. Conservative vs. Experimental
  2. Heirarchical vs. Heterarchical
  3. Competitive vs. Cooperative
  4. Fragmented vs. Transdisciplinary
  5. Proximal vs. Intimate

My sixth is:

6. Theoretical vs. Applied

So, why might I prefer someone with an M.A. over a Ph.D.?  Two reasons:

First, Ph.D.s sit at the top of the discipline-centric pyramid of academia.  Given they have spent years researching very specific topics, it is understandable that they tend to draw discussions back to their own field of study.  While such “vertical” rigor is honorable and necessary, sustainability educators also need to focus on a “lateral” rigor and tie together Earth, life, social and health sciences along with philosophy, economics, business and more.  I find M.A.s generally more willing and able to connect these dots, build these bridges, and share our fundamental stories of interdependence.  For more on this topic, see my 4th blog post in this series on fragmented vs. transdisciplinary thinking.

The second reason I like to hire M.A.s is they often see their degree as a passport to interesting work in the “real world.”  Doctoral programs on the other hand tend to attract and train “armchair theoreticians” who can maintain a detached, abstract perspective of the world.  To many Ph.D.s (especially those who become professors), knowledge appears passive, decontextualized and best transmitted through didactic lectures, textbooks, and multiple-choice exams.

While noble in intention, the idea that it is possible to keep our opinions and feelings objective and separate from that which we study, is more a theory than reality.  No research is value free. The problems we choose to explore, how we observe, extract and order information, and how we present our findings are all reflections of who we are. “We don’t study nature.” said Rollo May.  ”We investigate the investigator’s relationship to nature.” (May 1975).

Today’s emerging young leaders face a changing and challenging world in which technological advances are outpacing our collective wisdom and maturity. Of course we need to train (and sometimes even hire!) Ph.D.s.  But also, and perhaps more importantly, we need to train community builders – applied scientists – with the knowledge, skills, and commitment to create sustainable models of living and working together in peaceful and productive ways.

Ecovillages, in order to survive and prosper, must focus on practical knowledge and wisdom that can be applied in real-world settings. Theory is in the service of “what works.” Ecovillages are inherently participatory, discovery-based and experiential.  While few ecovillage educators have doctoral degrees, I feel many have multiple Ph.D. levels of expertise gained from decades of experience and experimentation.

Living Routes students learning surveying in Brazil

Living Routes students surveying in Brazil

These are the educators that have taught Living Routes students to regenerate the tropical dry evergreen forest in Tamil Nadu, India; to design and implement permaculture gardens for schools in Brazil; to build recycling centers in Mexico and greenhouses in the U.S. using local natural materials; to help create the first written fairtrade contract in Peru.  And it is clear our students learned more real-world knowledge and skills through these internships and service learning opportunities than in even the best classes or seminars.

Having said all this, I want to also acknowledge that environmental and social responsibility is on the rise in academia.  The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) currently lists 47 Bachelor’s, 40 Master’s, and 8 Doctoral programs in sustainability.  So, perhaps it will be possible to hire applied and generalist sustainability Ph.D. in the coming years.  This would be a good thing, not only for Living Routes, but for the Earth as well.

Next up: “Secular vs. Spiritual.”  Please share your thoughts, questions, and counter-arguments in the comments.  Thanks!

In community,
- Daniel

References:

  • Bateson, M. Our own metaphor: A personal account of a conference on effects of conscious purpose on human adaptation. New York, 1972. 
  • May, Rollo. Opening remarks at session one of the association for humanistic psychology theory conference. Tucson, AZ, April 4, 1975.
(This series is adapted from my forthcoming chapter in “Localizing Environmental Anthropology: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillage Design for a Sustainable Future”, edited by Joshua Lockyer and James Veteto and published by Berghahn Books)
Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

Why Academia Needs Ecovillages p.5: Proximal vs. Intimate Community

“I’m so lonely.” she said, from across the lunch table.  “Really?!” I responded in disbelief.  “How can you be lonely among thousands of fellow students and faculty and in such a dynamic and interesting town?”  This was the early 80s and I was a sophomore at Cornell.  The conversation that followed changed how I think about community and, in some ways, led to my work today with Living Routes, which partners with the University of Massachusetts – Amherst to offer college-level study abroad programs based in “ecovillages” around the world.  More on that in a minute.

In this 10-part blog series, I am exploring how ecovillages tend to be more aligned than traditional colleges and universities with the core “stories” of sustainability.  So far, I have compared the hidden curriculum of academia and ecovillages in the following ways:

  1. Conservative vs. Experimental
  2. Heirarchical vs. Heterarchical
  3. Competitive vs. Cooperative
  4. Fragmented vs. Transdisciplinary

Now I would like to describe a core distinction between these two environments as:

5. Proximal vs. Intimate

Experiencing a sense of community (away from home and family) is a major reason many students choose to attend college.  I certainly formed life-long friendships in dormitories, classes, extracurricular activities, and off-campus housing.   Many also make strong connections in coop houses, fraternities/sororities, sports teams and residential “living and learning communities.”

While I don’t mean to trivialize these friendships, let’s also recognize that academia tends to support relationships among students with peers typically not more than a few months or years older or younger than we are and within narrow roles, such as student/teacher, classmate, fellow researcher, etc.  This lack of diversity can make academic communities feel somewhat artificial or shallow.

And this can feel lonely at times.  Getting back to my lunch conversation, I slowly came to realize this person was confusing proximity with community and that we probably all do this from time to time. Being around people – even thousands of people doing really interesting things – is not the same as being in community.  Especially in academia with its transient and me-focused culture, it is easy to get swept up in the river of registration, classes, studying, and exams and not take the time to really live with others.

Often, all it takes is intention.  It can be the simple difference between asking “Is anyone sitting here?” in a cafeteria and “Would you like to have lunch with me?”  But there is no intrinsic incentive to invite others into your life in academia and, consequently, it can be a solitary journey for many.

Going further, I wonder if academia actually limits our understanding of community.  We are taught to “show up” for classes, exams and activities, but rarely are we involved in their creation. I wonder how many graduates go on to feel it is enough to vote, but not get more involved in their local or broader communities.

This is not just about creating good neighborhoods.  Being in community — not just with each other, but with all life — is at the very core of creating sustainable and fulfilling lives.  And yet, I often find this a difficult concept to get across.  When I talk about ecovillages, people tend to think they are interesting experiments, but the idea of really living in community with others is often perceived as somehow old-fashioned, passé, perhaps even a bit intimidating.

When I hear people say ecovillages are not relevant to mainstream society I encourage them to step back and take an evolutionary perspective.  Community is not a new invention. As the anthropologist Margaret Mead noted, for 99.9% of human evolution, we lived in tribes.  We are social animals!  Humans have a built-in cognitive limit of being able to only maintain stable relationships with approximately 150 individuals (Gladwell 2002:179).  Facebook notwithstanding, it seems humans are hard-wired to “belong” within human-scale communities in which they can both know and be known by others.

Tragically, many people in modern, “developed” countries have lost this sense of community; some so thoroughly that their closest acquaintances are characters on TV shows. I believe this lack of connection is at the source of our unsustainable and often violent cultures. As individuals and as nations, I don’t think we could do what we do to each other or the environment if we fundamentally believed we all belong here.

Ecovillages offer “living” communities in which members share common visions and needs and have a wide range of relationships with others committed to their long-term growth and development. Immersing students within ecovillages allows them to rekindle this sense of community and interdependence.

Living Routes’ use of small class-size, authentic assessment methods, and the creation of “learning communities” within these “living communities” further supports students’ growth and development. The sense of belonging that Living Routes students experience within ecovillages often awakens and fulfills a need that many did not even know they had. And once nourished, this sense of belonging tends to expand to include ever-broader communities—both human and non-human.

Next up: “Theoretical vs. Applied.”  Please share your thoughts, questions, and counter-arguments in the comments.  Thanks!

In community,
- Daniel

References:

  • Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York, 2002.
(This series is adapted from my forthcoming chapter in “Localizing Environmental Anthropology: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillage Design for a Sustainable Future”, edited by Joshua Lockyer and James Veteto and published by Berghahn Books)
Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

127 Months (to transition)

(Spoiler alert!  If you haven’t seen 127 Hours and don’t want to know how it ends – as if? – don’t read this.  Oh, and I will return to my series on ecovillages vs. academia soon, but I couldn’t resist writing this post.)
 

“We are in between stories” observed Thomas Berry in 1978.  Our old Cartesian, reductionist, industrial stories are clearly dysfunctional and destructive, but new ones like those being developed by ecovillages, transition towns and millions of other initiatives and innovators around the world, have not yet gone mainstream.

It is happening, but not always in straightforward ways.  I believe new stories and metaphors are bubbling up through our collective unconscious to help us understand and cope with the coming crises of peak oil and climate change.

One recent example is the movie 127 Hours, which chronicles the true story of mountain climber, Aron Ralston (played by James Franco) and his incredible efforts to save himself after his arm was pinned by an 800 pound rock while canyoneering.

In many ways, Aron’s story perfectly parallels where we are as a species.  We have become cocky and careless and have forgotten simple tools that have helped in past emergencies.   We’ve fallen from on high and are now truly “caught between a rock and a hard place.”

And like Aron, it’s taking us a while to fully grasp the severity of our predicament.  Our water (i.e. oil) is running out, but there’s still some left, so we think maybe it’s not so bad. But we’re so thirsty!  And, oh shit!  We just spilled some!  This can’t be happening!  Okay, don’t panic.  It’s a big problem, but we’re smart!  We’re strong!  By brains or brawn, we can come through unscathed.… Right?

Wrong.  In the end, it’s too little, too late.  Like Aron muses, our whole life, all of our actions over thousands of generations have led to this moment… to this decision that is almost too horrific to even comprehend.

The thought seems insane!  Cut off our what?!  But this is part of who we are!  We would die!  And the pain!  The pain would be just too much….  No, it’s better to just wait.  Maybe someone will come along to save us.  Maybe if we just keep chipping away at the problem, we’ll be able to pull out of the situation.

It all comes down to this moment.  This generation.  Instead of 127 hours, we have maybe 127 months – around 10 years – to make the ultimate decision.  Are we willing to cut off our lifeblood of oil; break the very bones of our economy; go through some intense pain … in order to survive as a species?  Or will we wait it out and die as cowards?

Our story can still have a happy ending.  Aron Ralston not only survived.  He was transformed.  He healed.  He became a father.  Now, he’s climbing new mountains and inspires others to accept change and take control of their lives.  If we accept our destiny and collectively take this hero’s journey, we will renew the world and our role in it.  Distant generations will sing our praise. This is our mythic moment folks!  Let’s get crackin’!

Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Ecovillages and Cultural Change

I’m taking a short break from my 10-part series on “Academia vs. Ecovillage” to share some thoughts about where ecovillages fit into our hopeful transition to a more sustainable future and how they might become more effective innovators of cultural change.

To start, let’s think about how “transitions” happen; how innovations become adopted by mainstream society.  In 1962, the sociologist, Everett Rogers, analyzed 508 studies and developed a theory that many innovations (e.g., the telephone, transistor radio, postage stamps, tetracycline, compulsory schooling and others) are adopted in five stages:

  1. Awareness: Gaining exposure, but not a lot of motivation to learn more
  2. Persuasion: Becoming interested and seeking additional information
  3. Decision: Weighing pros and cons and deciding whether to accept or reject
  4. Implementation: Starting to employ the innovation
  5. Saturation: Using the innovation to its fullest potential

If we (simplistically) lump all “sustainability” initiatives together and talk about them as a single innovation, I’d say humans are collectively somewhere around the Persuasion stage where individuals, governments and businesses are now becoming more interested in sustainability, but haven’t yet decided to fully invest in real changes.

Now, clearly this is an oversimplistic diagram. There are many sustainability innovations and some (e.g. compact flourescents) have been adopted more than others (e.g. plug-in electric cars).  And, of course, we’re not all in the same stage of adoption.  Some of us are still learning the basics while others are fully implementing solutions.  To expand on this diversity, I’ve adapted Alan Atkisson’s Amoeba Model of Cultural Change using sustainability as the innovation under the microscope.

While not the most flattering metaphor for social change, we can learn a lot by imagining societies as single-celled amoebas and ourselves as molecules within such an organism. What does social change look like in an amoeba?  Think about the way they eat.  When an amoeba senses food, it reaches out a pseudopod (“fake foot”) to embrace it.  If it’s good food, eventually the whole amoeba will slosh along and move in that direction.

Human societies move in much the same way.  The molecules in the lead of the pseudopod are the “Innovators” of society.  They have great ideas, but (among humans at least) are often seen as a bit eccentric or too far out there.  In order for innovations to become successful, they often need “Change Agents”, idea brokers who can promote and market these innovations to “Transformers”, the early adopters and forward thinkers in the mainstream.  At the other end of the amoeba, there are “Laggards” who just don’t like change and “Reactionaries” who may even be sending out pseudopods in the opposite direction.  There are also “Controllers”, like governments and the military who exert a lot of influence over societal changes.

So, what does this model look like if we consider Sustainability as the ultimate goal?  I believe ecovillages are at the very tip of the pseudopod and represent the fullest, most integrated experiments in how humans can live well and lightly in a post carrying capacity world.  Unfortunately, as innovators, they are also commonly seen as peculiar, marginal, irrelevant, even a bit wacky (okay, a few of them are a bit wacky ;-) ).

Organizations like Living Routes and Gaia Education act as change agents and help bridge the gap between ecovillages and leading-edge members of the mainstream who are looking for ways to create positive change in their own lives and communities.  On the other end, there are oil lobbyists and climate deniers who are intentionally trying to obsfucate and mislead the public about the key challenges of peak oil and climate change. In this system, universities play the role of a controlling influence, either supporting or hindering education for sustainability.

Note that within controlling subgroups, like universities, we have the same cast of characters and individuals and groups often play different roles here than they do in wider society.  For example, in society as a whole, Living Routes is a change agent, linking ecovillages with eco-minded college students; but within academia, Living Routes is an innovator, helping move the field of study abroad toward more sustainable practices.

What does all this have to say about how ecovillages can best move societies in more sustainable directions?  On one hand, I think Living Routes and Gaia Education have been effective in focusing more on people who are ready to learn and less on the laggards and reactionaries.  On the other hand, I worry that we have not been able to reach very far past the early adopters and connect with more mainstream audiences.  Why is this?  In addition to the five stages of adoption, Roger Everett also described five factors that influence how likely innovations are to be adopted by individuals and societies:

  1. Relative Advantage: How much better is this than what I am doing?
  2. Triability: How easy is it to experiment with and try out?
  3. Observability: How visible is it to others?
  4. Compatibility: How relevant is this to my present life?
  5. Simplicity: How difficult is it to incorporate into my lifestyle?

Seen through this lens, I feel ecovillages are doing well with #1, so-so with #2, and less than they could be with the latter three.  First, there are clear advantages to ecovillage living.  Almost everyone who spends time in one of these communities comes away with a “Wow! This makes sense!” experience.  This is why Living Routes is so passionate about our ecovillage-based programs.  In addition to teaching human-scale solutions, they often both awaken and fulfill a need for belonging and interdependence that students didn’t even know they had.

On the down-side, while there is a strong trial-and-error mentality in most ecovillages, it is difficult to participate in these experiments if you are not a member or long-term visitor.  The biggest challenges to the adoption of ecovillage models, however, are that they tend to be in remote locations; they seem really different from the way most folks are currently living; and there just seems no easy way to bring that lifestyle “home”.

What to do?  How can we better bridge ecovillages with the mainstream?  First, we need to recognize that “The times, they are a’changin.”  Back in the last millennium when Living Routes started (okay, it was 1999), just the concept of “sustainability” was a hard-sell and ecovillages were way off the map.  Thanks to Al Gore and many others, the general population today has a much better understanding of the crises facing us and that something has to change.  Just what this change will look like, however, is still unclear and, while ecovillages may seem pretty cool, such a radical shift in lifestyle is difficult for most people to imagine.

One of the most effective models for helping mainstream communities visualize positive futures is the quickly growing Transition Town movement.  Started in 2005 by Permaculturalist Rob Hopkins in the U.K., there are now over 300 officially recognized Transition Initiatives in the U.K., U.S. and elsewhere.  These are grassroots movements striving to develop local, resilient responses to peak oil, climate change and economic instability.

It’s likely that Transition Initiatives have found quicker adoption than ecovillages because they are more observable, compatible, and relevant to where people live.  To use another metaphor (I love metaphors :-) ), imagine a “football field of life” and the end zone is sustainability.  I’d say humans are somewhere around the 10-yard line.  The strategy I’ve brought to Living Routes has been to throw a Hail Mary to ecovillages, that are perhaps somewhere between the 60 and 80 yard lines.  It’s an exciting play able to create huge advances, but it’s also risky, requires a lot of faith, and focuses on just a few players.

So, I’m thinking… How can Living Routes improve our ground game?  How can we focus on the whole team moving ahead yard-by-yard and getting those first downs?  To me, this involves working more with issues and challenges that affect people in their home environments.  Ecovillages will continue to stand out as inspirational models, but we also need to recognize that we are all in transition and address students where they are.

I’m not yet sure what this will look like long-term.  Certainly it will mean reframing much of what we are already doing, shifting some of our courses, and perhaps connecting with more local projects in all of our programs.  I’m also interested in creating advanced programs based in towns and cities with active transition initiatives that can allow students to apply the holistic models they were exposed to in ecovillages to more diffuse mainstream environments.  I’ll let you know how it goes, but in the meantime, I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.

In community,
- Daniel

Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Why Academia Needs Ecovillages p.4: Fragmented vs. Transdisciplinary

Google CEO - Eric Schmidt

Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt recently estimated that, in two days, humans create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization until 2003.  While good news for Google, I fear all this data is serving to fracture rather than integrate knowledge at the university level.

In this 10-part blog series, I am desconstructing academia’s hidden curriculum and presenting ecovillages as more suitable campuses for preparing future leaders to respond to the game-changing threats of peak oil and climate chaos.  So far, I have described the following comparisons:

  1. Conservative vs. Experimental
  2. Heirarchical vs. Heterarchical
  3. Competitive vs. Cooperative

Now I would like to explore ways academia and ecovillages differ in how they are:

4. Fragmented vs. Transdisciplinary

Okay.  We have this exponentially increasing rate of knowledge generation.  How do universities respond?  They create more disciplines and sub-disciplines of course.  In the 13th century, a typical university might have had four “departments” (Theology, Medicine, Law, and Arts).  Today, one can receive a degree in over 1,300 fields of inquiry.

On one hand, this is great – especially if you’re really, really interested in say… Sociocybernetics or Gravitational Astronomy or Chronobiology or Nanoengineering.  (Check out the list.  It’s pretty cool.)  And I do value specialization.  If I have something funky going on with my ears or throat, you bet I want to see someone with advanced training in Otolaryngology.  And I love how Quantum and Elementary Particle Physics is giving us a much deeper understanding of reality.

The problem is, reductionism often precludes holism.  When we stockpile knowledge into ever more discreet and isolated containers, we not only miss the forest for the trees, we often don’t even recognize the trees.  My Ph.D. is in Child Development and I remember how my colleagues could explain in detail how preschoolers visualize spatial problems or how one-year-olds develop “intralimb coordination” (Walking!  Just say walking!), but how very few of them seemed interested in actually hanging out with kids.  One of the best things I did in grad school was get my Early Education Teaching Certificate, but this was seen as somehow abnormal and irrelevant by my peers.

Almost by definition, disciplines create boundaries of focus that exclude even closely related topics.  They do this by developing a unique language and demanding fluency in their jargon as a criteria for membership in their “knowledge community.”  This is no small problem when, for example, atmospheric chemists, oceanographers, biologists, and ecologists can’t easily speak with each other or share information about climate change.

Universities often create disciplines like farms create silos.

This “silo” mentality is a core reason why “sustainability” is such a conundrum within academia.  It’s not a question of importance (although a few holdouts continue to argue this).  It’s rather a question of, “Where do we put that?” Is it Environmental Science?  Engineering?  Regional Planning?  Anthropology?  Economics?  Philosophy?  Education?  Or maybe we should just let our Grounds and Facilities folks deal with it….

Of course, the answer is “all the above” (and more) since sustainability is inherently transdisciplinary and doesn’t fit neatly into any single department.

Some universities respond to this conundrum by making one department “the” sustainability department on campus, but of course that is fundamentally ineffectual.  A more common response is to add content within existing majors to help students learn about sustainability through their own disciplinary lens.  While better than nothing, I find this strategy reminiscent of Ptolemy adding epicycles onto planetary orbits in an effort to maintain his geocentric model of the heavens.

We need a Copernican Revolution in Academia!

We now need a Copernican, heliocentric revolution within academia.  We need to recognize that environmental and social responsibility are not fringe issues, but rather at the core of educating in a post-carrying capacity world.  “Sustainability is no longer an elective!” as Cornell president David Skorton said. (Underwood 2007:60) Unfortunately, “universities in the U.S. have not yet risen to this challenge and many sustainability initiatives have dissolved into fragmented, tinkering reforms that fail to address the underlying workings of our complex socio-ecological systems.” (Costanza 2010:1).

It's not easy to turn a ship around in the Panama Canal.

While I believe a sustainability revolution in academia is necessary and is happening, it is a bit like herding cats on an ocean liner trying to turn around in the Panama Canal (Hey, I tried. Feel free to offer your own metaphor in the comments ;-) .  In the meantime, I’m interested in working with places that are modeling a more transdiciplinary, holistic approach to sustainability.  And this is why Living Routes sustainability programs are all based in ecovillages – communities striving to live well and lightly together.

Living Routes students constructing a windmill

Ecovillages recognize that real-life issues rarely exist within the boundaries of disciplines. For example, the decision to put up a windmill requires knowledge within the fields of appropriate technology, engineering, regional and community planning, governance, and even sociology and anthropology. Creating an organic farm crosses disciplines of agriculture, nutrition, philosophy & ethics, business, education, and communications, among others. Living Routes courses such as sustainable community development, applied sustainability, ecological design, leadership for social change, and worldview development can often be cross-listed in multiple departments because they do not fit neatly within academia’s disciplinary structure.

While able to train specialists, ecovillages are uniquely positioned and equipped to train much-needed generalists who possess a “lateral” rigor across disciplines to complement a more traditional “vertical” rigor within disciplines.  “God did not create the universe according to the departmental structure of our research universities.” (Armstrong). Sustainability requires us to think systemically, holistically, and transdisciplinarily and ecovillages are ideal “campuses” for this type of education.

Next up: “Academic vs. Living Community.”  Please share your thoughts, questions, and counter-arguments in the comments.  Thanks!

In community,
- Daniel

References:

  • Armstrong, John as quoted in Honan, William. “Academic Disciplines Increasingly Entwine, Recasting Scholarship.” New York Times 23 Mar. 1994, late New York edition: A19.
  • Costanza, Robert. “The Role of Universities in Creating a Sustainable and Disirable Future.” Portland State University Sustainable Solutions (http://www.pdx.edu/sustainability/robert-costanza) (April 7, 2010).
  • Underwood, Anne. “The Green Campus.” Newsweek Magazine (Aug. 20-27, 2007): 60-66
  • History of Education, Encyclopædia Britannica (1977, 15th edition), Macropaedia Volume 6, p. 337
(This blog series is adapted from my forthcoming chapter in “Localizing Environmental Anthropology: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillage Design for a Sustainable Future”, edited by Joshua Lockyer and James Veteto and published by Berghahn Books)
Posted in Daniel's Posts | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments