Gaia Community

New tribes and adverse selection?

Booner [no longer around] said Sep 7, 2006, 4:14 PM:

People were born into hunter/gatherer tribes and remained in those tribes for life (or married into closely related tribes, or perhaps a tribe would split into two tribes). The same is true for some modern tribes, such as the Hutterites.

However, we are mobile and can pick and choose, and come and go. I see many Intentional Communities with some form of communal property or income sharing that are looking for new members, as opposed to expanding the group by having children.

So, if prospective members can pick and choose, is there an adverse selection problem? Will the most capable and productive among us find the tribal model disadvantageous?

Show Replies

Re: New tribes and adverse selection?

Ann said Sep 8, 2006, 2:34 PM:

I'd say its too soon to know …..and one other thought is 'virtual communities'. As Quinn talked about in Beyond Civilization–they created a community whereby each contributed their talents to support the tribe (newspaper)…and yes, they were all within the same building–but is this a requirement to make a community?

You say in your profile that you like living in the 'boonies' and thus I assume you don't want to join in physical proximity–but does that mean you don't want to join in virtual proximity? Thus, a 'group' could come together, co-support each other by contributing talents from which they all reap the bounty….but could be scattered across the globe. “Leaving” the tribe would be as simple as all agreeing that the member either can't or doesn't want to continue to contribute (because they want to jump to a different tribe at this time in their lives–because of a myriad of reasons–new excitement with a group, new challenges etc.)

This would allow for the flexibility/need for tribal change…especially in lives that are going to last 90 years of which we might be actively 'working' from 16 to 76…how could one tribe serve every members needs for that long–they couldn't! But if tribes were more virtual…and not physically 'stuck', it allows for moving, changing–and also–and this is what I think is going ot have to be a major requirement for every tribe member–each is SELF responsible–not in an 'every man for himself', but self responsible in honoring that in joining a tribe, my SELF has a responsibilty to honor self and other members–when my needs change or the tribe's needs change–we are 'adult' responsible and can work to morph the tribe as needed, deal with possible disappointments and still move on…

Re: New tribes and adverse selection?

Booner [no longer around] said Sep 8, 2006, 7:00 PM:

I am still in the city during the week but hike in the mountains on weekends. I aspire to turn this inside out and live in the country full time and come into town once a week for supplies. I am all for virtual communities. Right now satellite internet is the only “broadband to the boonies” and that is just barely adequate. I have no objection to physical proximity, in fact I am looking to visit or intern at an eco-village or other sustainable community to learn a few things.

You say that “leaving the tribe would be as simple as all agreeing…” etc. But all don't have to agree. The only person who has to agree is the one leaving, and he can just walk out.

I do have some experience with virtual project teams, and there are some real problems with this, mainly with people who coast on the efforts of others. Open-source projects do work, but it is all volunteer work so there is no bounty to share and no problem with slackers.

When a business hits hard times, the tendency is for the best employees to move on while the worst employees hang on as long as they can. Scarcity for all? Not if people are free to leave.

New tribalism? I think there needs to be some very strong social glue to hold a tribe together. Even then, it's problematic. Marriages fall apart, business partnerships dissolve. It would be interesting to see some statistics on turnover in intentional communities. A virtual tribe? Even more problematic.

Re: New tribes and adverse selection?

Ann said Sep 8, 2006, 7:28 PM:

I agree that all communities are problematic….and being a counselor…I know how many different levels of consciousness people are at….and when you try to put them together, phew, watch out! It is very tough…

And I think another huge issue though is trust–we have been taught to distrust others with an 'every man for himself'.Taker culture. From that anyone currently trying to create a community has, I believe a deep wondering of “am I going to end up a sucker at the end of all this? even as they cross fingers and hope it works out!..

To me it comes back to a huge 'shift in consciousness'…starting with SELF responsiblity–truly owning your own life, taking risks with consciousness, being engaged (no slacking here!) merged with a new connection to the entire Community of Life and designing life that honors all. That said…I would venture a guess that less than 2% of the world's population could meet these requirements :(

So, from a 'social glue' stand point..I don't think we've got it at this point ….sad to say.

Re: New tribes and adverse selection?

Sean said Sep 15, 2006, 2:17 PM:

I disagree that there needs to be some strong social glue to hold a tribe together….I believe that what held tribes together was a “strong self preservation glue”.

Which of course is a kind of “social glue” since we can define those words in many ways…the strength it seems to me of the tribal model is that it simply WORKS. It works to support and provide security for the individual while acting within the whole.

Regarding a business tribal model, a co-op is a perfect example of a business owned and operated by it’s members for the gain of the individual and through that–a gain for the whole. Slackers may survive in a virtual project team but only if roles and responsibilites are not clearly defined. If 5 members of a co-op business run the business and each is dependent on the other for it’s “survival” then a poor performance or no performance will include an “auto-remedy” of dismissal from the co-op for not holding up their end and therefore affecting the whole. Just like the ancient tribal model.

The hunter-gatherer that never hunted as part of the tribal hunting party would soon not reap the rewards as well…

Re: New tribes and adverse selection?

Booner [no longer around] said Sep 16, 2006, 2:40 PM:

I think there is a disconnect between the notion of security and the notion of dismissal. There are slackers and there are people who try very hard but just aren't very competent. Each tribe has to decide whom to carry (security) and whom to vote off the island (dismissal). Policies will vary from tribe to tribe, and (here's where adverse selection comes in) the marginally competent will be attracted to tribes with lenient policies, and the exceptionally productive will be attracted to tribes with strict policies… unless there is some social glue like kinship or shared belief system that retards mobility from tribe to tribe.