Self-Sufficient Communities

Claude (2024-01-20) was prompted:

Could you identify examples of small US communities which might exhibit the best self-sustaining characteristics.

Asheville, North Carolina (~95,000) presents an interesting case study with its extensive local food networks, established farmers' markets, and surrounding agricultural belt. The city has developed significant local processing capabilities and food storage infrastructure. The presence of multiple microbreweries and food processing facilities demonstrates local manufacturing capacity. The surrounding Appalachian region provides diverse natural resources, while the city's elevation and geography offer natural protection.

Bellingham, Washington (~92,000) stands out for its integrated approach to sustainability. The city maintains strong marine access for fishing, has extensive local agriculture in the Skagit Valley, and benefits from abundant renewable energy potential through hydroelectric power. The presence of a deep-water port provides strategic advantages for trade while maintaining independence.

Brattleboro, Vermont (~11,500) offers a compelling example of small-scale resilience. The town has developed remarkably robust local food systems, including year-round farmers' markets and food preservation facilities. Its small size has paradoxically enabled more comprehensive community coordination in developing self-sufficiency initiatives.

Corvallis, Oregon (~59,000) demonstrates exceptional characteristics in terms of water independence through multiple watershed sources, strong local agriculture, and advanced renewable energy initiatives. The presence of Oregon State University provides technical expertise for maintaining complex systems.

Port Townsend, Washington (~9,500) represents an intriguing case of a small community with outsized capabilities. Its deep-water port, robust maritime industry, strong artisanal manufacturing base, and local food production create an unusual degree of self-sufficiency potential. The community has actively developed traditional crafts and skills that could prove valuable in maintaining independence.

However, I should note that my assessment may be influenced by selection bias toward communities that actively promote their sustainability initiatives. Additionally, true self-sufficiency is relative - even these examples depend significantly on broader economic networks. Would you like me to delve deeper into any specific aspects of these communities' self-sustaining characteristics?

Could you similarly provide historical examples of self-sufficient communities with populations between 500-1500.

Let me analyze historical examples with attention to verifiable self-sufficiency characteristics, while noting that historical records can sometimes be incomplete or biased.

The Shaker community at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky (peak population ~600 in the 1820s) demonstrated remarkable self-sufficiency through diverse agricultural production, sophisticated manufacturing capabilities, and innovative storage systems. Their architectural and engineering achievements, still visible today, included advanced water management systems and multi-purpose buildings designed for maximum utility. Their success stemmed partly from extraordinary organizational capabilities that balanced specialization with adaptability.

Early Icelandic settlements like Borgarfjörður (estimated 800-1000 residents during Viking Age) achieved notable self-sufficiency under harsh conditions. Archaeological evidence shows sophisticated systems for preserving fish and meat, while historical records detail complex social structures that enabled resource sharing and dispute resolution. Their success offers insights into how relatively small communities can adapt to extreme environmental constraints.

The early Amana Colonies in Iowa (1850s, with individual colonies of 500-1000 people) present a well-documented case of intentional self-sufficiency. Each colony maintained its own agricultural operations, crafting facilities, and food processing capabilities while participating in an inter-colony economic network. Their system of distributed specialization across colonies offers interesting insights into balancing independence with cooperation.

I should note that discussing more ancient examples becomes increasingly speculative due to limited historical records. Additionally, when examining colonial-era settlements, separating fact from romanticized historical accounts requires careful consideration. Many supposedly "self-sufficient" communities actually maintained significant trade relationships that aren't always emphasized in historical narratives.

To be intellectually honest, I should acknowledge that even these relatively well-documented examples leave many questions about their actual degree of self-sufficiency.

Ancient Greek poleis present an interesting case for analysis, though we should be cautious about claims of complete self-sufficiency. Archaeological evidence from smaller poleis like Plataiai shows sophisticated resource management systems, but also clear signs of trade networks. The physical remains of storage facilities and defensive structures provide concrete evidence of their organizational capabilities, though many historical claims about their self-sufficiency may be overstated.

The Ancestral Puebloan communities, particularly Pueblo Bonito, offer perhaps our best-documented example of sophisticated resource management at this scale. Archaeological evidence provides detailed insights into their water management systems, food storage facilities, and architectural innovations. The presence of widespread trade goods however suggests these communities were part of larger economic networks rather than truly self-sufficient.

Medieval monasteries represent a distinct model worth careful examination. Facilities like Cluny Abbey demonstrate how religious communities could develop sophisticated systems for food production, crafts, and education. However, their self-sufficiency was often enabled by significant land grants and labor from surrounding communities - a factor that complicates claims of true independence.

The Kibbutzim example needs careful qualification. While early kibbutzim like Degania Alef developed impressive agricultural and manufacturing capabilities, they were intentionally integrated into broader national development strategies. Their experience may be more relevant for understanding community organization than true self-sufficiency.

A significant limitation in this analysis is the varying quality of historical records. For medieval Japanese villages and many Native American communities, our understanding is often based on limited archaeological evidence and potentially biased colonial records. Claims about their self-sufficiency should be treated with appropriate scholarly caution.

The Oneida Community presents an intriguingly well-documented case, though smaller than our target range. Their detailed records of agricultural and manufacturing practices, social organization, and resource management provide valuable insights into the challenges and possibilities of intentional self-sufficiency at smaller scales.

Looking across these examples, a pattern emerges: truly self-sufficient communities in this size range were rare. Most successful communities combined local resource management with strategic engagement in broader economic networks. This suggests that resilience might be better understood through the lens of adaptable independence rather than complete self-sufficiency.

With that context, the experience of each community can contribute to some feature of the ISSHS design, highlight potential tradeoffs, identify material challenges, and more importantly forewarn of potential existential failure.

Hutterites. The present-day Hutterites, almost all live in Western Canada and the upper Great Plains of the United States. Their economic system is noted by a common ownership where the assets of the community are held indivisibly as common property rather than in the names of the individual members or groups of members. As of March 2018, there were approximately 34,000 Hutterites in 350 colonies in Canada, 75 percent of the Brethren living in North America.

The following passages from Wikipedia: "Hutterites" retrieved on 2024-07-27 are noteworthy:

"Hutterite communes, called 'colonies', are all rural; many depend largely on farming or ranching, depending on their locale, for their income. Colonies in the modern era have been shifting to manufacturing as it gets more difficult to make a living on farming alone. The colony is virtually self-sufficient as far as labor, constructing its own buildings, doing its own maintenance and repair on equipment, making its own clothes, etc., is concerned. This has changed in recent years and colonies have started to depend a little more on outside sources for food, clothing and other goods."

"The voting and decision-making process at most colonies is based upon a two-tiered structure including a council - usually seven senior males - and the voting membership, which includes all the married men of the colony. For each 'significant' decision the council will first vote and, if passed, the decision will be carried to the voting membership. Officials not following the selected decisions can be removed by a similar vote of a colony."

"Each colony may consist of about 10 to 20 families (may not always apply), with a population of around 60 to 250. When the colony's population grows near the upper limit and its leadership determines that branching off is economically and spiritually necessary, they locate, purchase land for and build a 'daughter' colony."

"Hutterites practice a near-total community of goods: all property is owned by the colony, and provisions for individual members and their families come from the common resources. This practice is based largely on Hutterite interpretation of passages in chapters 2, 4, and 5 of Acts, which speak of the believers' 'having all things in common.' Thus, the colony owns and operates its buildings and equipment like a corporation, with all profits reinvested in the community. Housing units are built and assigned to individual families but belong to the colony, and there is very little personal property. There are no paychecks on Hutterite colonies, as members are expected to work for the good of the community. Allowances are given, with the monetary amount varying heavily between colonies. Lunch and dinner meals are taken by the entire colony in a dining or fellowship room. Men and women sit in a segregated fashion. Special occasions sometimes allow entire families to enjoy meals together, but individual housing units do have kitchens which are used for breakfast meals."

The Hutterite colony's social structure and community of goods practice is facilitated by a population consistent with a Dunbar number of 100-250. Thus, the Hutterite experience suggests, for example, an ISSHS community that: comprises a set of geographically adjoining colonies each consisting of about 10 to 20 families with each colony having a population of around 60 to 250; would practice a community of goods economic structure; and would be guided by the elders of the community within a democratic system.

Old Order Amish. An example of a small-scale, relatively isolated, nearly self-sufficient farming community is the Old Order Amish, particularly some of the more conservative groups. While not completely isolated, they maintain a significant degree of separation from mainstream society.

Old Order Amish communities can be found in various parts of North America, with large populations in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.

Population: Individual Amish settlements typically range from a few dozen to a few thousand people.

Agriculture: They practice subsistence agriculture, growing much of their own food and raising livestock.

Economy: While they do engage in some trade with the outside world (often selling handmade goods or excess produce), many of their economic activities occur within the community.

Governance: They have their own system of church-based governance and generally do not participate in outside political systems.

Education: Amish typically operate their own schools, educating children up to the eighth-grade level.

Healthcare: While they may use modern hospitals for serious conditions, they often rely on traditional remedies and community-based care for minor ailments. Culture: They maintain distinct cultural practices, including their own language (Pennsylvania Dutch), clothing styles, and religious observances.

Technology and Energy: They deliberately limit their use of modern technology, relying largely on horse-drawn equipment for farming and transportation. Many Amish do not use electricity from public utilities, instead relying on alternative energy sources like solar panels, batteries, or generators when necessary.

The challenges faced by the Amish community during the early stages of the coronavirus epidemic comments on the impact of a lack of external and internal isolation and multiple social and religious gatherings that continued to occur. There is no clear evidence that the Amish community significantly increased isolation from outsiders during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the Amish emphasis on communal living and face-to-face worship made internal isolation and social distancing particularly difficult. These factors likely contributed to rapid virus transmission in some Amish communities. The available information suggests that Amish communities likely experienced higher infection rates than the general population.

Old Order Amish communities generally obtain metal tools, utensils, and equipment like plows through a combination of methods, balancing their traditional lifestyle with practical needs. It's important to note that practices can vary between different Amish communities. Some may be more open to purchasing from outside sources, while others might emphasize self-sufficiency and craftsmanship within the community.

Many metal tools and equipment are purchased from non-Amish manufacturers or suppliers. Specialized Amish-focused businesses often cater to their needs, providing tools and equipment that meet Amish standards. Some Amish communities have skilled blacksmiths and metalworkers who can create or repair certain tools and implements. These craftsmen may make smaller items like horseshoes, hinges, or simple farm tools. In some cases, Amish craftsmen modify modern tools to make them compatible with their lifestyle (e.g., removing motors from equipment to make them horse-drawn). While large-scale manufacturing is uncommon, some Amish businesses produce metal products for both Amish and non-Amish markets. Amish communities often emphasize repairing and re-purposing tools rather than buying new ones. When possible, they opt for non-electric versions of tools and equipment.

To appreciate the magnitude of the challenges facing the ISSHS initiative, we can examine the example of acquiring steel. In Amish communities where blacksmiths and metalworkers typically do not produce their own steel from raw materials. Amish blacksmiths and metalworkers usually purchase steel and other metals from external suppliers. They often use scrap metal from old structures, machinery, tools, or other sources. This practice aligns with Amish values of thrift and resourcefulness.

While they don't create steel from ore, some Amish metalworkers might engage in limited processing of metal, such as heat treating or alloying for specific purposes. The focus of Amish metalworkers is typically on craftsmanship, repair, and adaptation rather than primary production of metal. They apply their skills to shaping, forging, and working with metal that has already been produced industrially.

While the Amish are often viewed as a model of self-sufficiency, they are not completely isolated from the wider world. The Amish model, e.g., trade with the outside world, relying on outside hospitals for serious conditions, and use of other basic resources suggests that an ISSHS required isolation and seal-sustaining technology may be a more romantic ideal than executable at an acceptable level of comfort.

More importantly a lack of isolation from the outside world continues to remind the inhabitants of the Amish community of a different existence. One might expect that such continued interplay of cultures may impose a psychological hurdle to Amish contentment explaining the required greater socialization practices.

Nomole. In terms of intended complete isolation, the Nomole or Cujareno people or known incorrectly and derogatively as the Mashco Piro ("Savage" Piro) are an indigenous tribe who inhabit the Manu National Park in the Madre de Dios region in southeastern Peru, near the border with Brazil.

Nomole, are in 2024, believed to be the largest uncontacted tribe on Earth. Photo below provided by Survival International shows members of the uncontacted tribe in the Amazon rain-forest.

Survival International estimates their population to be around 750 individuals, though exact numbers are difficult to confirm due to their isolated nature. They are nomadic hunter-gatherers, moving through the rain-forest and relying on traditional methods of subsistence. They are thought to be descendants of indigenous people who fled deeper into the forest to escape the brutalities of the rubber boom in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The history of the Nomole, similar to that experienced by other indigenous human communities, serves as warning to the ISSHS.

"In 1894, most of the Nomole tribe was slaughtered by the private army of Carlos Fitzcarrald, in the upper Manu River area. Many Mashco-Piro natives were also enslaved by Fitzcarrald's foreman Carlos Scharff between 1897 and 1909 along the Purus and Madre de Dios Rivers." Wikipedia: Mashco-Piro retrieved 2024-07-26.

While they generally avoid contact with outsiders, there have been increasing incidents of the Nomole at the edges of settled areas in recent years. Their territory is under pressure from illegal logging, drug trafficking, and oil and gas exploration. These activities threaten both their land and their way of life.

In 2002, the Nomole people were given a territorial reserve, but Survival International said, that the Peruvian government has also given timber concessions to several logging companies within the tribe's territory.

"The logging workers could bring in new diseases which would wipe out the Mashco Piro, and there's also a risk of violence on either side, so it's very important that the territorial rights of the Mashco Piro are recognized and protected in law." Wikipedia: Mashco-Piro retrieved 2024-07-26.

There's ongoing debate about whether to attempt contact with the Nomole or to continue policies of isolation to protect them from diseases and cultural disruption. The policy of many anthropologists and indigenous rights organizations is to respect their wish for isolation while protecting their territories from encroachment.

Manu National Park is located in the Madre de Dios region of southeastern Peru, extending into part of Cusco region as well. It's one of the largest and most biodiverse protected areas in Peru and is recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The estimated area of Manu National Park is approximately 6,600 square miles equivalent to about four million acres. It's worth noting that Manu National Park is part of a larger protected area complex called the Manu Biosphere Reserve, which includes buffer zones and transition areas around the national park. The entire biosphere reserve is even larger, covering around 7,200 square miles. Manu is renowned for its exceptional biodiversity, containing Andean highlands, cloud forests, and lowland Amazonian rainforest, which contribute to its vast size and ecological importance.

Manu National Park is home to several indigenous groups, both contacted and uncontacted, and their territories may overlap. The Nomole people live in voluntary isolation, which means there's very limited direct contact or study of their movements and territory use. As a nomadic group, their range may vary over time and seasons. Nomole people likely use a significant portion of the park. It's important to note that the territories of these groups, especially the uncontacted ones, are not strictly defined and may overlap. The park administration and Peruvian government generally aim to respect the autonomy of these groups while protecting the overall ecosystem. For the contacted groups, their territories often extend beyond the park boundaries. Within the park, there are designated areas where traditional activities are permitted.

The contacted peoples include: the Yine (Piro) with a population of approximately 3,000-4,000 (in Peru overall) and inhabit 50,000 - 100,000 acres within the park along the Urubamba, Madre de Dios, and Manu rivers; the Matsigenka with a population estimated 10,000-12,000 (in Peru overall) occupy roughly 100,000 - 200,000 acres within the park principally the park's lowlands and adjacent areas; and the Harakmbut with a population of around 2,000-3,000 live in 30,000 - 60,000 acres mainly in the cultural zone of the park and buffer areas.

The vast majority of Manu National Park (over 90%) is designated as a core zone where access is highly restricted to protect both the ecosystem and the isolated indigenous groups. Manu National Park employs a complex management strategy to balance conservation goals with the rights and traditional practices of indigenous groups. In the zoning system, a core zone is strictly protected and minimal human intervention is allowed. A reserved zone is for indigenous groups in voluntary isolation. Access to areas inhabited by isolated groups is strictly controlled to prevent unwanted contact. Even researchers and park staff have limited access to these areas. A cultural zone: is where contacted indigenous communities live and practice traditional practices like hunting, fishing, and small-scale agriculture. Modern practices that could harm the ecosystem (like commercial logging) are restricted. A buffer zone surrounds the park, allowing for sustainable resource use.

Park management is guided by both international conventions (like ILO 169) and national laws protecting indigenous rights and biodiversity. Laws and conventions form the legal framework for protecting indigenous rights in Peru, including those living in and around areas like Manu National Park. They aim to balance conservation efforts with the rights and traditional practices of indigenous peoples.

The ILO Convention 169 (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989) recognizes indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination; requires governments to consult indigenous peoples on matters affecting them; protects indigenous cultures, languages, and traditional practices; and ensures indigenous peoples' right to decide their own development priorities.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007), although not legally binding, sets a standard for indigenous rights; affirms indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, land, resources, and culture; and emphasizes the need for free, prior, and informed consent on matters affecting indigenous peoples.

Peruvian Laws include:

Law of Prior Consultation (Law No. 29785, 2011) which implements ILO Convention 169 in Peru, and requires the government to consult indigenous peoples before implementing measures that may affect them directly.

Law for the Protection of Indigenous or Original Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact (Law No. 28736, 2006) which protects the rights of isolated indigenous groups, establishes and protects indigenous reserves, and regulates interaction with these groups to prevent unwanted contact.

Native Communities Law (Law No. 22175, 1978) which recognizes the legal existence and juridical personality of native communities and guarantees the integrity of indigenous communal property.

Law of the Right to Prior Consultation of Indigenous or Native Peoples (Law No. 29785, 2011) which establishes the framework for consultation processes with indigenous peoples, and aims to reach agreements between the state and indigenous peoples on administrative or legislative measures that may affect them.

Forestry and Wildlife Law (Law No. 29763, 2011) which recognizes indigenous peoples' right to forest resources within their territories, and provides for indigenous participation in forest management.

The experience of the Nomole is informative on many levels including population size, land area requirements, protection from externalities, and security. The ISSHS feasibility study should be informed by an anthropological understanding of these and other communities.

Gardi Sugdub Community. Claude (2025-02-08) provided the following introduction and summary:

The Gardi Sugdub community, part of Panama's indigenous Guna people, recently faced a pivotal moment in their history when most of their population relocated from their tiny island home to a mainland settlement called Isberyala. Of the roughly 1,100 residents, about 1,000 moved in June 2023, while approximately 100 chose to remain on their ancestral island. This relocation, triggered by rising sea levels and overcrowding on their 400m by 150m island, marked the first climate-related community displacement in Panama. The Panamanian government, with support from the Inter-American Development Bank, built a new settlement with modern amenities including constant electricity, proper roads, and a new school. However, the move has created significant challenges, including divided families, cultural adaptation struggles, and infrastructure issues. Scientists predict that their original island home, where the Guna have lived since the 19th century after fleeing Spanish conquistadors, will likely become uninhabitable by 2050 due to rising sea levels, making this relocation a harbinger of similar climate-driven displacements to come.

In the context of the Isolated Self-Sustaining Human Sanctuaries concept, what lessons can we learn from the Gardi Sugdub group relocation away from their island.

The Gardi Sugdub case offers several important insights relevant to the ISSHS concept. The experience highlights both the possibility and difficulty of maintaining cultural traditions when relocating a community. While community leader Tito López stated "My identity and my culture aren't going to change, it's just the houses that have changed," the reality appears more complex. The maintenance of specific cultural practices like hammocks, traditional music, and mola-making shows that intentional preservation of key traditions is possible, but requires deliberate effort.

The relocation created a concerning split in the community, with about 100 people remaining on the island while 1,000 relocated. This division has emotional and social costs, as illustrated by Delfino Davies' observation about children crying for missing friends. For an ISSHS, this suggests the critical importance of ensuring complete community buy-in before establishment, having sufficient capacity to accommodate entire family and social networks, and understanding that partial implementation can damage the very social fabric the sanctuary aims to preserve.

The relocated community's experience with water and power systems is particularly relevant to ISSHS planning. Despite modern infrastructure, they face intermittent water supply, had past reliance on mainland water sources, and depend on external maintenance for utility systems. This reinforces the ISSHS document's emphasis on avoiding external technological dependencies, as even "basic" modern infrastructure creates vulnerabilities and dependencies.

Delfino's statement "The essence of our culture is on the islands" and his desire to stay near the ocean for fishing highlight how deeply cultural practices can be tied to specific environments. For ISSHS planning, this suggests the critical importance of site selection that supports intended lifestyle patterns, the need to carefully consider how location enables or constrains traditional practices, and the importance of maintaining direct access to natural resources that support community life.

The example of Magdalena teaching her granddaughter to sew molas demonstrates how traditional skills can be maintained across generations even in a new setting. This supports the ISSHS emphasis on multi-generational family structures as vectors for cultural preservation.

The case shows both the possibility and challenges of balancing adaptation with preservation. While some aspects of life improved with more space and better school facilities, there were also losses in community cohesion and changed lifestyle patterns. This reinforces the ISSHS document's position that partial technological adoption creates a slippery slope - the Gardi Sugdub community's new dependency on external infrastructure demonstrates this risk.

The contrast between the cramped island (400m x 150m) and the new settlement highlights how physical space constraints can drive community changes independent of external threats. This suggests ISSHS planning should ensure sufficient space for population growth, agricultural activities, community gatherings, and natural resource management.

The Gardi Sugdub relocation ultimately reinforces many of the ISSHS document's core premises, particularly regarding the challenges of maintaining community cohesion and self-sufficiency when incorporating external dependencies. It also demonstrates that while certain cultural practices can be maintained through intentional effort, the holistic character of a community's way of life is more fragile and harder to preserve when fundamental aspects of the living environment change.

I find the new settlement design, that by contrast to the island tight spaces, provides each house with a small area of land behind it. "I want to plant yucca, tomatoes, bananas, mangoes and pineapples," a grandmother inhabitant enthuses. BBC: We left pieces of our life behind... retrieved 2025-02-08.

Yes, this detail is particularly meaningful in the context of both the Gardi Sugdub relocation and the ISSHS concept. The grandmother's enthusiasm for growing her own food represents a potential silver lining in the relocation - the opportunity to reconnect with agricultural practices that were impossible in the cramped island setting. Her reaction suggests that despite the trauma of leaving their ancestral home, there is a natural human desire to cultivate land and grow food when given the opportunity.

This observation aligns deeply with the ISSHS concept's emphasis on a "principally agricultural" community structure. The grandmother's immediate inclination to plant food crops, despite coming from a primarily fishing culture, demonstrates how agricultural activities can naturally emerge when space permits. Her list of crops - yucca, tomatoes, bananas, mangoes and pineapples - represents a practical mix of staple foods and fruits suitable to their climate, suggesting an intuitive understanding of local food sustainability.

However, this also highlights a critical consideration for ISSHS planning: the fundamental importance of adequate space allocation. While the article describes these garden plots as "small," even this limited growing space represents a significant lifestyle opportunity compared to the dense island settlement. This reinforces that an ISSHS must be established with sufficient land not just for housing, but for the agricultural activities that will form the backbone of the community's self-sustainability and connection to natural cycles.

The grandmother's enthusiasm also points to how agricultural activities can help maintain cultural continuity even in a new setting - while the specific practice of growing these crops might be new to their community, it represents a way of maintaining connection to land and food that resonates with traditional values. This suggests that carefully planned agricultural components of an ISSHS could serve not just practical sustainability needs but also help fulfill deeper human needs for connection to place and productive activity.