
Like startups, most intentional communities fail. Why? - alannallama
https://aeon.co/essays/like-start-ups-most-intentional-communities-fail-why
======
tmnvix
It's a (single) generational thing.

I spent time growing up in a couple of different 'intentional communities',
both of which are dying a kind of slow death for similar reasons (as are many
others that I am aware of).

These communities were founded by groups with particular sets of shared
ideals. Shortly after being founded they started to welcome new members -
offering a share in the assets of the community in return for labour and
commitment. This generally worked well.

The problem is that as these people approach retirement they begin to realise
that the community and its assets are all they have in the way of a retirement
fund (sometimes also a modest private fund as well but their share of the land
they live on is usually their most significant asset). This realisation is
usually enough to stop or slow the practice of giving new members a share in
the community's assets. This in turn makes joining the community less
attractive.

On top of these financial concerns, there is the lack of shared ideology from
one generation to another. The children that grew up in these communities
prefer to go off and live their own life instead of carrying on with their
parents dreams.

I am only aware of a couple of communes here in NZ that appear to be making
this generational transition successfully (most communes here are approaching
50 years old, having been started in the 70s by people in their 20s).

~~~
pmoriarty
Would the Amish be considered an intentional community? They've somehow
managed to keep their community together and functional across the
generations, and in the face of enormous technological and cultural upheaval.

~~~
tmnvix
I suppose so.

Interestingly, none of the communities I was referring to in my previous
comment were based on religion (with the exception of one that was loosely
christian-pacifist).

Perhaps where religion is involved the outcome may be different.

~~~
BurningFrog
One thing that makes something a sustainable religion is that it can be passed
on to the next generation in full strength.

From that perspective, saying that religion makes this easier is a bit
tautological.

------
fluxic
While I think anti-capitalist communes are as hopeless as the author portrays,
communes of likeminded individuals _have_ been successful. Consider the
Chelsea Hotel in NYC. In addition to being the cornerstone of NYC's art scene
for 100+ years, it also contributed to billions of dollars in value creation.
[0] The hotel was intended to be a community for artists from the start, and
by every measure it was successful.

A few factors that made the community successful:

— Residents still had jobs

— Residents were expected to pay (very low) rent

— Residents had a lot of leeway if they missed their rent

— Residents were generally selected for their likemindedness/talent

— Residents stayed at the hotel for a good stretch of time, fostering a sense
of community

— Short-term tourists and wealthy patrons helped keep the rest of the
community afloat (like many of these communes)

— It was in Manhattan, not the middle of nowhere

I think it's still remarkably possible to create successful intentional
communities. However, I think that being isolated with 100 people in the
middle of Indiana is probably less tolerable (in the long term) than living in
a communal hotel with 100 people while still living in an exciting city. It's
less incestuous that way, and you're constantly being invigorated by new ideas
from your next-door neighbours.

[0] [https://medium.com/@bagelboy/make-america-bohemian-again-
de8...](https://medium.com/@bagelboy/make-america-bohemian-again-de846e35d757)

~~~
andrewflnr
I like this story. My pet theory (after thinking about this for half an hour)
is that the key is to keep the tight-knit community (selective entry probably
helps), probably the internal governance structure, but drop the requirement
of self-sufficiency. In fact, interaction with the "outside world" might well
serve to more firmly anchor the group's identity.

I want one of these for software developers. Edit: and no, YC doesn't count.
Sorry.

~~~
cinquemb
Thinking/Questions about this more for "software developers":

1) What would be the equivalent of a "painting"? (esp in the age of copypasta
from stack overflow)

2) Who would the "owners"/"patrons"/"tourists" be?

3) How could this work internationally?

Some thoughts:

1) I don't really know. At first I was thinking "create a program that
automates some task you could do with your computer" so it could allow for the
mundane and complex, but the former is probably found as stack overflow
questions. I know some forums use submit a pull request on git repo with a mod
as a way in.

2) I was thinking that software engineers in relatively high paying gigs could
be the "owners" who would in a sense subsidize maybe a nice apts somewhere in
SE asia/ eastern europe where they themselves could vacation or hang out, or
other engineers could live and pay "rent" (as well as all the necessary
hacking of the legal/visa system) either in currency or maybe gigs with/for
other engineers, companies and freelancer clients would be "patrons", or
"tourists"

3) You can pretty much deploy code from anywhere in the world, but navigating
the bureaucracy/exploitation (mostly looking at wage discrepancies) of
traveling and working anywhere in the world isn't quite here yet. Something
that feels transient like airbnb, but robust and minimizes the incentives to
pollute "the commons".

But also good to keep in mind that such a system probably won't be free of
what ails us all as humans.

The recurse center mentioned by the other poster seems like something in that
direction, but seems very focused on a specific location for bringing people,
where I think something like this could benefit from being able to be anywhere
with subset of such people involved able to go from place to place or fixate
as they see fit/things arise.

~~~
andrewflnr
I'm not sure what your point is re #1. I wouldn't try to translate the concept
so literally.

Your ideas for ownership sound good, but another option would be a co-op.
There's obviously all sorts of difficulties with this, but it seems possible.
Also, there doesn't have to be just one. It can be customized per location,
per group of founders, or per anything-else. We can let the variants fight it
out in the best Darwinian fashion.

In your #3, are you talking about having the whole group roving around the
world? At that point it seems like you're taking about something a lot more
ambitious than I am.

~~~
cinquemb
I guess with #1 I was just thinking what would be the equivalent of a
"painting", since that seemed to work for them.

With #3, I was thinking that maybe some people would want to be roving around
the world, to different hubs that are all connected. So instead of fighting it
out with other similar yet competing(?) ideas, each hub would reinforce
another with given resources available to people who are passing through or at
a hub at a given time, yet still have the freedom to do their own thing. Also,
maybe something like this could avoid being too reliant on a given location
(like NYC for the artists, or possibly what SF has become today) over time if
a locations economics turn out to not be so in favor compared to other
locations, as well as allowing for flexibility with others who cant/wont move
to a single location/country.

------
suneilp
Many people lack, or don't have enough of, the ability to deal with conflicts,
emotions, unexpected outcomes, etc. Not to say that these things are always
easy to deal with for anyone.

Advancement is also an infuriating process. Either there isn't enough
opportunity to learn or develop the skills to advance, or the requirements to
get someone or some organization to invest in you is difficult to obtain for a
lot of people.

The maddening pursuit of self-interest makes people more discriminating in who
to support and build up.

The way a lot of people put down others often tends to be very toxic and not
everyone who is on the receiving end knows how to deal with that.

We definitely haven't tried everything possible to "get along". One thing for
sure is that there is definitely advancement in this area led by thought
leaders blogging and new trends such as the recent "triggered" and "safe
space", the typical criticism by assholes like calling them "snowflakes", etc.
And then someone will realize some new idea and the cycle will begin.

There is clearly a large amount of people who are deaf to these things, or
perhaps it does reach them, just very slowly.

Education is so very important and yet we're gutting it here in America. I'd
like to see more emphasis placed on teaching kids (and adults) how to deal
with conflict with people and within themselves.

------
delegate
I think the premise of the article is wrong.

Most 'intentional' communities didn't fail and are still around after hundreds
or thousands of years - they're called 'villages' and 'cities'.

Granted, not all were founded on ideological or philosophical principles, but
many (if not most) were - some were christian settlements, some were people
running away from poverty or some kind of banishment from their native
communities, some were founded by idealistic explorers.

Forming a community based on drug fuelled inspiration is of course doomed to
failure, because like it or not, a human settlement requires a certain
'machinery' set up which can sustain it - food production, energy, waste
disposal, health care and so on - all of these need to be well planned ahead
of time and resources (human or otherwise) allocated for each of these areas.

Another mistake that these communities make is turning away from technology
and trying to live 'purely', based on the premise that technology in itself is
somehow 'evil', which of course is not true, as that is a function of how
people apply it to the world.

What if instead of avoiding technology, people in a community embraced it and
actually developed new versions of it ?

How about a well-planned, energy-independent, self-driving electric
everything, robots-everywhere high tech community of knowledge workers ?

Psychedelic buildings ? Fine, 3D print (or fabricate) them, while making them
energy efficient.

Food ? How about building and fabricating plant-farming robots instead ?

Education? How about children participating in the design and development of
the software and robotics developed by the community ?

Decision making: Through the software written by the community members.

All of this based on a sustainability and ecological ethos / leave no trace
ethos.

Just a few pointers.

Current technology is probably not quite there yet, although it's maybe a
couple of years away - and what better place to refine it than the community
itself.

The 'community' technology, when refined enough, can then be replicated all
over the world pretty easily.

An alternative would be 'town-as-a-service' kind of organisations - building
and maintaining the tech stack of entire cities/communities, although it would
totally rock if the community itself did this.

~~~
xpaqui
> Most 'intentional' communities didn't fail and are still around after
> hundreds or thousands of years - they're called 'villages' and 'cities'.

That doesn't count as an intentional community. Unless you are talking about
very specific `villages` and `cities` that where created from the top for
specific groups.

~~~
vkou
Salt Lake City. Or, if you want to see 'created from the top', there's also
St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad/St. Petersburg.

------
defen
A sense of shared sacrifice strengthens community bonds. I would suggest that
there is a signalling problem that needs to be solved ("we are all in this
together, making this sacrifice") - in other words, an unforgeable way for
community members to signal to each other that they are _not_ free riders. If
everyone knows that everyone is not a free rider, the community will be much
stronger. I submit that this is the primary reason religious "intentional
communities" with strict rules are much more likely to succeed than the
generic "utopian community" ones. Without that sense of shared sacrifice, it
is too easy for grifters and free-riders to glom on.

~~~
arjie
In _The Righteous Mind_ , Jonathan Haidt cites evidence that intentional
communities that have shared sacrifice without sacralising the acts or the
principles behind them see no gains from the sacrifices demanded. Essentially,
you need religious fervour or something similar to get the advantage of
sacrifice.

------
evjim
I live in an intentional community. It is only 3 years old and not flourishing
at all. The major problem is the benevolent dictator system and highly
restricted rules.

I find reading these reports very interesting because I would like to
find/join/build an actually successful village.

Current cities are highly regulated and high cost. All I want is my own plot
of land(not a commune) with like minded neighbors who built their own houses,
grow their own gardens, and work on technology. It seems like the only way to
do that would be to cooperatively purchase land at split it up on ground
leases, making it commune ish

~~~
blunte
You mention like-minded neighbors... even if everyone in your community is
like-minded, your community property boundary touches properties owned by
people who may not share your vision or ideals. Then you need to create a
buffer zone around your community. But even still, and especially significant
for communities that want to do farming, property beyond your control can do
things that directly affect water flows into your property.

There are some eco village efforts going on around the world. The Tamera group
in Portugal is fairly famous (and mentioned in the article), but it tends to
draw a lot of attention due to it's _almost_ mandatory practice of non-
monogamy. (And I challenge you to look through their photos and imagine being
expected to have sex with some number of the other community members :P ).

Costa Rica seems to attract very eco-minded community efforts, and in fact
much of their tourism is eco-related. You might find something interesting
there.

------
Kinnard
Intentional communities are not 'like' startups, they are startups, all the
way down to the legal structure in many cases:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company)

Most notable:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company)

Peter Thiel Further clarifies this: [https://www.wired.com/2014/09/run-
startup-like-cult-heres/](https://www.wired.com/2014/09/run-startup-like-cult-
heres/)

I think this insight/mode of analysis is most valuable to founders.

~~~
notahacker
There's a bit of a difference between a community of libertine/religious
utopians to practice their ideals and ventures set up for (mostly) paid
workers to operate trading outposts to yield sufficient profit to keep their
wealthy and powerful investors satisfied...

~~~
Kinnard
Yes, there is variance of structure and character in the population of
startups.

------
jtsnow
An interesting counterpoint: Early Mormon settlements in western North America
had a 90% success rate. In Utah, the success rate was 94%. [1]

Renowned urban planner Andrés Duany has praised the design of these
communities. [2]

[1]
[https://youtu.be/5xP33zsNTzE?t=25m30s](https://youtu.be/5xP33zsNTzE?t=25m30s)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58VW0ihf3SA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58VW0ihf3SA)

~~~
blunte
Fanatical followers behind a single leader probably helped it reach a critical
mass, which helped with attaining and largely maintaining success.

------
forkandwait
The Hutterites have been going strong for 500 years.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite)

~~~
sparky_
I don't think that's a fair comparison, given the article discusses things
like hippie communes. Baby boomer collectives are a far cry from groups like
the Amish.

~~~
paulddraper
Well, that's the point.

Some kinds of intentional communities survive. Other kinds almost never do.

------
thinkcontext
I was kind of disappointed by this article, it seemed very distant from the
real flourishing intentional communities that exist today. Seems like the
author did a little reading and that's about it.

If one is going to connect intentional communities to startups a good one to
think about is the Factor E Farm that's part of the Open Source Ecology
project [0]. The community is a hacker space for implementing and
experimenting with machines for self sufficient communities. It might not be
the best when considering intentional communities since the community supports
the project.

Another community worth considering is called Dancing Rabbit [1] in rural
Missouri, it was founded in the 90s by Stanford grads. Its model is that of an
eco-village. Residents are economic free agents, many of whom free associate
into a variety of co-ops. The land is owned by a trust and the rules the trust
holds residents to place an emphasis on ecological stewardship. It has around
75 residents.

Twin Oaks [2] in VA by contrast is a classic collectivist community. Its
modeled after the community described in Walden 2 by BF Skinner. The community
is centrally planned and is income sharing, that is, residents work on
business and chores for the community who receives the revenue, pays all
expenses, and gives the individuals a small allowance. This community has been
around since the 70s and has over 100 residents. Its businesses include
hammock making, tofu making, book indexing and agriculture.

[0] [http://opensourceecology.org/about-factor-e-
farm/](http://opensourceecology.org/about-factor-e-farm/)

[1] [http://www.dancingrabbit.org/](http://www.dancingrabbit.org/)

[2] [http://www.twinoaks.org/](http://www.twinoaks.org/)

------
exolymph
Because emergent systems respond to incentives fluidly without needing
centralized coordination. They outperform designed systems.

~~~
djrogers
There is a huge selection bias in that statement - emergent systems often
don't make it past the first opposing stimulus, so you're only considering the
ones that evolve past a certain point.

~~~
exolymph
That's fair! What I meant is roughly equivalent to this better-worded comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13777826](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13777826)

------
artur_makly
one of the most influential books on this topic for me was : Ecotopia

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia)

it attempts to solve all of man's biological, emotional, and spiritual needs
via a techno-eco master plan.

top 10 book on my list. enjoy

------
dvt
I think that most communities (but specifically utopian communities, as the
article discusses), like startups, aim for a "non-zero-sum" ideal -- that is,
a way of making everybody happy.

But there's something about our existence that screams "zero-sum": there's
scarcity in the universe, for one (a lot more hydrogen than lead, for
example); there's scarcity in the Earth (a lot more iron than gold); there's
scarcity in nature (mates are hard to find, not finding a mate means your
genetic material doesn't propagate), heck there's even scarcity in our own
lives (if I spend time studying math I won't have time to study music).

IMO failure is driven by this facade of non-zero-sum-ness crumbling and people
becoming disillusioned.

So I've tried to change my mentality recently when building (or thinking
about) social things. In a zero-sum universe, if someone has a lot of
followers, someone else won't have any. If someone gets some benefit, someone
else won't.

Socialism vs capitalism is a very weak analogy (the idea of scarcity and
winners and losers goes far beyond economics), but I think there's some merit
to it.

~~~
qplex
Computers break the zero-sum game; data can be copied with almost no cost
within the limits of the system.

Failure of communities that embrace this fact is usually brought on by
external entities that cling to the norm of scarcity.

~~~
dvt
But I think the point is that people _aren 't_ computers.

~~~
qplex
Yes, very true.

My point was that the (virtual) communities that fully embrace the non-zero-
sum properties of computers usually fail because the outside norm of scarcity
gets imposed upon them.

------
warcher
Intentional communities, by and large, fail to recognize the many darwinian
iterations of evolution modern societies have gone through over the years,
where successful social organizations have overwhelmed their less-adapted
brethren.

Simply put: the current way of organizing society is a pretty good plan for
organizing a very, very complicated social mechanism full of smart, self-
interested actors towards the common good. Is it fucked up still in many
respects? Absolutely. Do you have a better idea? Highly unlikely. We've been
working on this whole "getting along" thing for millennia, and we've tried
pretty much every idea possible at one point or another.

There's a modern conceit that we're somehow smarter or better than previous
generations, and that's very misguided. We're much better _informed_ ,
certainly. The conventional wisdom, the collective mental schema regarding
what's a good idea and what's not, that's improved dramatically. Not because
you thought about it, but because a bunch of faulty social assumptions have
gotten weeded out over the years. But people are pretty much the same as
they've ever been.

~~~
jacquesm
> There's a modern conceit that we're somehow smarter or better than previous
> generations, and that's very misguided.

But: We _do_ have better tools.

And better tools combined with the same level of smartness can give you better
or at least different outcomes.

~~~
tabeth
No, better tools simply makes the magnitude of the variations larger, it
doesn't necessarily give you "better" outcomes.

~~~
aianus
When's the last time we had a famine in the developed world?

------
johan_larson
The problem I see with these communities is that they never manage to achieve
prosperity. The best of them sort of get by, but none of them are actually
rich, or anywhere close to it. I think that points to some fundamental problem
in what they are doing.

~~~
AstralStorm
The problem is the definition of prosperity. How much and what do you want or
need to prosper? How much dependency will you accept? How much maintenance
risk?

Quick prosperity has usually been achieved by distribution of the cost
elsewhere.

The main goal of a community is some degree of sustainability, which strictly
conflicts with ultimate profit and prosperity.

And if each community tries to prosper you get hard interactions at the edges,
including equivalent of tribal or trade wars.

This is partly why the model does not scale, especially in the modern world.

Hierarchical models are open though to corruption if not handled carefully,
and subject to alienation of the leaders.

~~~
rmah
Non-hierarchical (or rather non-explicit) models are even more open to
corruption.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Not necessarily.

Conventional economic theories fail to make a useful practical distinction
between value creation and resource/wealth enclosure and monopolisation. (This
is deliberate - you need to know about Henry George to understand why.)

An updated scientific economics would highlight that distinction instead of
attempting to obfuscate it.

I suspect it's harder to be corrupt if you're generating real social value,
and relatively easy to be corrupt when you're simply appropriating value
tokens.

~~~
tomcam
Not following. Can you reduce it to chimp level for slowpokes like me?

~~~
cinquemb
I think this is what they were referring to[0] in part:

"Mason Gaffney, an American economist and a major Georgist critic of
neoclassical economics, argued that neoclassical economics was designed and
promoted by landowners and their hired economists to divert attention from
George's extremely popular philosophy that since land and resources are
provided by nature, and their value is given by society, land value – rather
than labor or capital – should provide the tax base to fund government and its
expenditures.[90]"

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Socialization_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Socialization_of_land_and_natural_resource_rents)

~~~
tomcam
Had no idea. Thanks

------
blhack
Because the further you are away from the original members, the further away
you are from the people who did a lot of the work to create the community in
the first place.

As the community approaches its peak, every new member gets to enjoy the
increasingly polished community, but lacks the respect needed for the work
required to get that polish.

Eventually, the inmates take over the asylum, and the original members leave.

------
allenz
The reasons given: "capital constraints, burn-out, conflict over private
property and resource management, poor systems of conflict mediation,
factionalism, founder problems, reputation management, skills shortage, and
failure to attract new talent or entice subsequent generations"

------
xacaxulu
Just an opinion having spent a few months on a few in rural NC: Hippies are
well meaning, but generally bad at the logistical/business angles to running
these within a broader state environment, i.e. county/city zoning,
fundraising, banking concerns, ownership legalities, etc.

~~~
blunte
Yup, just like many very passionate, motivated entrepreneurs. They have the
vision and maybe the charisma, but definitely also the drive, to get the thing
in motion and collect some participants. But just as the essay pointed out,
once the organization grows beyond a certain size and maturity, a more
business-like leader takes over.

And we have plenty of tech startup examples of what happens when that
charismatic visionary (non-businesslike) leader fails to recognize when it's
time to step aside...

------
dredmorbius
Consider what makes a community succeed in the first place, and what examples
of successful and failed communities there are.

Travel through much of the rural and rustbelt United States, for example, and
you'll find thousands of failing communities, in the sense that quality of
life, opportunity, population, and social infrastructures are declining.

The fundamental premise of a community is that it provides a basis for
livelihood, generally on the basis of solving some problem of interest to both
the inhabitants and those with whom they trade: rasing of crops or other
agricultural products, providing extractive resources, access to
transportation or communications routes or hubs, including ports, crossroads,
railways, or trading centers.

And that's _after_ taking care of the basics: fresh drinking water, disposal
of wastes, adequate food supply, shelter, protection from elements and
enemies.

Facilitating productive human interactions, most especially trade, industry,
development of technology or science, financial services, and the like.

Or providing for social welfare functions: education, healthcare, defence,
organisational acumen.

An "intentional community" is one, generally, formed on the basis of some
_idea_ , and frequently _an idea at odds with orthodoxy_. Within any advanced
system, most deviations from the norm are maladaptive, which is to suggest
that _most ideas aren 't all that good_. So there's that.

Heading off into the desert to pursue some idealised society starts off with
several strikes against you: no commerce, poor means of support, and an
insular society. This isn't _certain_ doom (the Mormons, after all, _did_
colonise Utah), but it's an uphill fight. The Mormon emphasis on _industry_ is
probably among the success factors.

I think the discussion is missing the signs of intentional communities around
us, that we simply don't recognise as such. Colleges and universities are
little more than communities based on ideas themselves, and whilst dynamic and
not entirely corresponding to the notion, aren't so far from the idea. I'd
argue that every city, town, or village, is in a sense an intentional
community _based on the idea of forging a livelihood_ , which is the
distillation of what it takes to exist and sustain a community. That might be
a good idea to start with.

And, as I'd noted to start with, there's no assurance such establishments will
continue or prosper either.

------
kingkawn
The intentions are too defined for people to get any satisfaction from
actually living them out any longer than it takes to prove that such an
intention can be carried out.

------
xpaqui
Without reading the article. Most unintentional communities also failed. Can
it be that there is a lot of trial and error on these things.

------
hypeibole
Does anyone have references to books about this topic?

I'd be interested in reading about it.

~~~
subpixel
Paradise Now by Chris Jennings (Peter Jenning's son, FYI) is recent and I
enjoyed it: [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/books/review/paradise-
now...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/books/review/paradise-now-the-
story-of-american-utopianism-by-chris-jennings.html?_r=1)

------
edblarney
Mennonites, Amish etc. are 'intentional' and have in reality fairly 'anti
capitalist' ideals (though not framed in those terms).

I know it's not the authors intent - but they are similar and should be a
basis of comparison to grasping why some work and some don't.

These traditional communities are highly authoritarian (as some hippie
communities often are), but they're maybe 'culturally authoritative' instead
of individualistically. By that I mean - social or religious orthodoxy 'sets
the rules' as opposed to 'some guys word' or a 'loosely agreed upon set of
rules with little foundation'. At least in the former, there's a degree of
objectivity, however good or bad you may judge those rules to be. In short -
very strongly traditional/culturally conservative mindset helps to define a
set of behaviours and attitudes that people stick with, and as long as they
do, it keeps going.

We have many near my hometown, very pleasant people. I'm sometimes jealous and
wish I could chill with them for a few months.

------
teddyh
Ｗｈｙ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｔｅｘｔ ｓｏ ＨＵＧＥ？

~~~
metaobject
It actually looks nicely formatted and sized on my phone. Are you on desktop?

~~~
teddyh
Yes.

------
Kinnard
The author neglects to note the most famous, successful and longevitous
example: Israel.

Millions of Jews followed Moses into the Sinai desert to build an intentional
community over 3,000 year ago and the project is still going today. Even more
remarkably, this community grew out of a single family. Most of the
intentional community projects of the 19th Century are explicitly modeled on
this.

I'm guessing this was an intentional omission.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Millions of Jews followed Moses into the Sinai desert to built an
> intentional community over 3,000 year ago and the project is still going
> today

That absolutely did not happen. If anything like the Exodus as written
happened -- and there are plenty of reasons to doubt that it did -- it didn't
involve millions of people, a number which the Bible doesn't even claim and
which would be implausible for the Hebrew population in Egypt at the time.

~~~
Kinnard
You are correct that that number doesn't appear in the Bible, it's
extrapolated from the count of 600,000 which only included males over the age
of twenty.

And lots of people contend the number is not meant to be interpreted
literally:
[http://www.aish.com/atr/Number_of_Jews_at_Exodus.html](http://www.aish.com/atr/Number_of_Jews_at_Exodus.html)

~~~
dragonwriter
> And lots of people contend the number is not meant to be interpreted
> literally:
> [http://www.aish.com/atr/Number_of_Jews_at_Exodus.html](http://www.aish.com/atr/Number_of_Jews_at_Exodus.html)

Your source does not, in fact, contend that, it takes the number of adult
males literally, reports the larger figures as extrapolations of the total
population from it, including a specific figure of around 3 million in the
Exodus out of 15 million Jews (about twice the population of modern Israel)
that were in Egypt at the time of the Exodus.

There being 3 million Jews in Egypt at any time that would fit the Exodus is
fairly implausible; 15 million well exceeds all estimates I've seen of the
plausible total population of Egypt at any such time.

Now, certainly, that number shouldn't be taken literally, and there's good
reason to doubt whether the outline of the story beyond the number should be,
either, which is why it makes not to cite it as a historical example of, well,
anything other than a religious myth.

~~~
Kinnard
What methods do you use to estimate the plausible population of ancient
civilizations?

Most secular academics do see the Exodus as legendary, but not mythical.
You've heard of the Hyksos:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos)
Striking parralells . . .

------
lutusp
"... why?"

Quote: "Duhm, heavily influenced by Marxism and psychoanalysis, came to see
material emancipation and interpersonal transformation as part of the same
project."

Hmm ... Marxism and psychoanalysis? I honor this person's idealism and
commitment to principles, but these two topics aren't remotely scientific --
they aren't meaningfully tested against reality before being applied. And
apart from not being reality-tested in advance, they both have terrible public
track records in cases where people went ahead and tried to apply them.

It's only the second paragraph of the article, and the reason has already been
revealed. This issue can be summarized as, "Before jumping into a lake, first
make sure it's not frozen."

