ecovillage population

In _Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of
Human Rights_ (Rodale, 2002, pp. 33-35; see also
http://www.thomhartmann.com/), Thom Hartmann refers to the work of Dr. Robin
Dunbar (_Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language_, Harvard
University Press, 1996), and suggests that social responsibility and
accountability start to break down when a group becomes larger than
150-or-so.

According to Hartmann, Dunbar found that 150 was a typical clan size for
Australian Aborigines and Native Americans (as examples among traditional
societies), as well as the number that Brigham Young chose for organizing
Mormon communities in Utah.

What I am addressing here is not the somewhat technical issue of how large a
"village" population can be while still maintaining "eco" or "sustainable"
status, but rather the issue of keeping a population small enough so that
every individual can feel a personal connection to the other individuals,
and know that his or her actions, whether directly effecting other humans or
the world of nature or both, are going to be noticed by others.

The implication of Dunbar's work, as used by Hartmann, is not that a village
can be no larger than 150 persons but, rather, that socio-political
decision-making must occur in relatively small groups.

Steve


----- Original Message -----
From: "E.Christopher Mare" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Ecobal]ecovillage and sustainability


> Hi Rob,
> There are more characteristics than just population that contribute to the
> unsustainability of "city-scale." If you have time, please see my paper:
> "Sustainable Cities - An Oxymoron?" at www.villagedesign.org.
> 'Ideal' population size comes in at 5000 for Kirkpatrick Sale in the
> highly-researched "Human Scale;" Christopher Alexander suggests 7000 in "A
> Pattern Language;" and Lewis Mumford is right in between these as well -
> this size being the upper range for "village-scale." Bill Mollison in the
> last chapter of the Designer's Manual says 500 is an ideal number to work
> with (lower range for "village-scale") and that these groupings can then
> be aggregrated into larger collectives. The Mondragon collectives,
> incidentally, tend to self-organize at around 5000.
> These are the parameters to work with. Large population centers, in this
> scheme, would be aggregates of self-contained ecovillages of up to 5000,
> which in turn would be aggregates of "hamlet-scale" economic/clan units of
> up to 500, which would be composed of "enclave-scale" family units of @
> 50.
> Then we'd have some organic settlement patterning......
> This is exactly how the Classic Maya organized their settlements.
> "City-scale" is way beyond "human-scale." How could it ever be
> sustainable??
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> writes:
> >>  By the way,
> >> "sustainable city" is an oxymoron.
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >Where woudl you draw the line on population of an "ecocity"?
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >PS  Sorry if this has already been covered.  I haven't been following
this
> >thread.


------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe to ecobalance go to:
http://www.ecovillage.org/ecobalance
------------------------------------------------