This is part one of a discussion on important issues related to resilient communities. Swadeshi means ‘own land’ when translated from Sanskrit – and it indicated self-reliance, or extended further – responsibility. This series, produced at least once per month, is related to the Global Swadeshi Dialogs. Let’s discuss whether the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS) has applications to average peoples’ lives. We encourage dialogue from the viewership.Support our work by subscribing to be a True Fan at $10/month for 2 years.
Blog
All Open Source Ecology content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.Powered by WordPress and Enigmatic
Things are not starting at point zero. What about convening an event this summer where intentional communities, cohousing, urban revision* etc. meet to discuss the potentials of regenerative production based on Open Source?
*see: http://urbanrevision.org/2009/11/moving-dallas-forward/
That’s a great idea. Anyone out there willing to help drive the organization of this forward?
given a plot of land, how would a gvcs development compete with traditional commercial development? The economics of the gvcs make sensse, but require a longer term perspective which is more difficult to finance. What’s more, the financing creates a dependence on additional production (above what is required for self-sufficiency) and is therefore vulnerable to external markets. how to resolve this conflict?
In a case with open source techniques and an available blueprint – plus a team of Core 4 developers – basic economic analysis shown here indicates a 6 month building period for the houses using outsourced labor at $50/hour. The total cost including equipment and agriculture infrastructure is under a million if you don’t count the cost of land. This case could apply to standard development – except in the case of GVCS availability – the cost of Equipment and Fab Lab would be 1/10th the cost, and the entire package could probably be deployed at half the cost. This makes the GVCS very competitive with commercial developments – in cost, comparable time to completion, and ability to secure reliable labor. We will report further data points on these economics as a result of this year’s building adventures. The point here is – such a package could be feasible to begin with either commercial equipment or the GVCS (if open source techniques and a qualified Core 4 team were available) – but depreciation/maintenance costs would destroy the non-GVCS attempt in the long run.
A possible picture of development with the GVCS available is shown in the next slide – but that requires a much larger set of assumptions, mastery of the GVCS, and an inspired mind.
The GVCS route is not more difficult to finance – outside of financing its very development – a catch 22. There is no dependence on additional production in financing the development. People buy in. Additional production begins once the people move in – at which time the development is already paid for. The production is not necessarily vulnerable to outside markets, because people are using the fruits of production – locally. On the other hand, production for external markets is optional, because the low cost of the neosubsistence lifestyle (see next Swadeshi Dialogue). This is by no means a welfare state of affairs. While the Core Four organizers are effective producers and provide the basics, other participants need to learn to be productive if they want more than the basics. You get out what you put in. At the same time – there is the advantage of no economic coercion.