There is an ecovillage ideal, but we should be realistic about what we can actually establish
Some of us would love to leap “from here to there” (sustainability), but we need to be realistic.
For one thing, it’s awfully hard to get consensus about “there” . . .
And it’s problematic when people get involved with a transformational project insistent upon the righteousness of their own particular vision. A great deal of compromise is needed. The most realistic expectation is that we can accomplish some incremental advances that, in general, show the way forward — guided by a conception of a direction that leads toward ultimately transforming lifeways.
Meanwhile, it’s a challenge to even build an ecovillage (or create an ecovillage neighborhood in a city) which has units that are more affordable than “market rate.” Surely, it seems, living more lightly and sustainably ought to be more affordable. But affluenza standards affect the decisions of zoning boards, neighbors, and even potential residents.
There is resistance to ultimatistic ideas like those of Ted Trainer:
