Green Grass

When you are 18 you pick a romantic partner based on how they look and whether they make you laugh. By 30, what matters is how they pack the dishwasher. For better or worse, I am a believer that the grass isn’t greener on the other side. It’s just different. We all come with our own set of stuff that will drive someone else nuts. The more we love them, the more nuts. It is about putting in the work together to create the space necessary to build the lives we want to live. It’s a daily practice. I believe honesty is vital in relationships, but that words are inadequate and hard. Honesty is allowing the time and space to gently unpack and tidy. To nudge. To plan. To hold. To weed. To plant. To water. To dance. Things get (and stay) a little crazy. My Aunt says you should always come back to a buffer of kindness and respect. My Aunt is a smart Tannie.

Maintaining the Theatre

I grew up in a religious community, but I am no longer religious. One tool that you lose when you move away from religion is the theatre of it. You can address the issues, like mental health, community building, gratitude, values and purpose separately. But you lose some of the ancient tools, and have to find creative ways to replicate them. 

Religion can provide the shared rituals, and necessary buffers from everything else. Like the difference between watching TV and going to the Cinema. The Cinema has a certain magic. The lights go down, the phones go off, and the film goes on. Religion can be a shared agreement to focus on something.

Keeping things Holy. Creating space around them. Protecting them. Arriving early and getting into the right head space. Putting the rest of the world aside. 

We are "trigger happy" - words, spaces, people, clothes, smells etc. trigger us to get into a certain frame of mind. Seeing a Rolex on a warrior on Saxon battlefield as they take on the Danes would burst the bubble. That is the strength of dedicated building with songs or words that create the environment to target whatever emotional connection it is you want.

Without the religion, you need to have a shared agreement of what it is you want to make special. You need everyone to want to make it special. Then you need to create the theatre. Maintain it, so you can give the story space to move you.

Revising Exam Answers

If we stay private till we plonk, we can't see the thought process people have gone through in order to come to their conclusions. We only see the end result. The path is more important than the conclusion. People change their own minds. The way we see the world changes as we see new things. The curse of knowledge makes it very difficult to ununderstand things. If you know that squiggles make words, you can't see squiggles - you can only see words. We are often forced to vote on things we don't understand. I think we should do more thinking in public, and be more open to changing our minds. We should be more critical of our own ideas once they are out there. Like being in an exam. You have a limited time to answer. You do your best. Then afterwards you see where you made mistakes, and you improve your answers for next time.

A friend and I are having a debate about some of the topical political issues. I am no expert. I have attempted to answer ten of his questions exam style. I sat down, and answered them in one sitting. Fancy marking my answers? More questions or direction to resources that would lead to better answers would be appreciated.

Exam Time

1. Should people have access to universal (free) tertiary education?

Various countries have different approaches. I am not familiar with the evidence. Intuitively it feels like learning shouldn't be a privilege, but I feel similarly to education as I do to housing. You can make things almost free by increasing supply. Water is almost free and incredibly valuable. Providing loans for people who can't afford it increases demand, but not supply, and so just makes things more expensive. I am hoping Education Technology makes education significantly more democratic. I am for a Universal Basic Income. That would allow people to make their own choice on what to spend money on, which would include education.

2. Should people have access to universal healthcare?

Primary and emergency healthcare does seem like a basic human right. Some cultures are better than others at holistic health, which also includes what you eat, how much exercise you get, whether you make time to relax etc. Work environments that are healthy etc. are as much a part of health as paid for treatment. Market forces struggle in healthcare and create perverse incentives. I suspect if a Universal Basic Income could free people who are natural carers from worrying about how to survive financially, more of them would focus on caring for free. Free healthcare does lead to very difficult moral questions around available, but very expensive treatments. That shouldn't stop us providing for the basics though.

3. Should environmental regulation be informed by the recommendations of environmental scientists or by the industries such regulations would affect?

Both. I think anyone who feels they have something to contribute to regulations should be listened to. Science, by definition, is open to to evidence that can prove it wrong. It should be rigorous in its approach. Regulations should direct activity away from wealth capture and towards wealth creation and attempt as far as possible to quantify and allow for negative unintended consequences. Industry  will be best placed to articulate their interests, and then government should be able to incorporate that, and the interest of society, into the rule of law.

4. Should we have a global carbon reduction target based on the recommendations of science?

Yes. That is what the consensus of the world's experts is. That should be factored in to creating the best possible steps to start targeting the various problems the world faces. Problems can't be looked at in isolation, and so negotiating these things at multi-national level can get ridiculously complicated. I am a fan of micro-ambitious measures. Things that the man in the street can do. Things like eating less (or no) meat, using public transport, and being aware of individual impacts of what we do. Any plans that stop us having to depend on negotiating big plans. Small bottom up plans are better.

5. Should the majority of the land at the ground plane in our cities be publicly accessible?

I am a big fan of shared spaces. I love parks and paths. The best cities I have visited have all seemed open to all, allowing all those who visit or live there to be cultural billionaires. The biggest menace for me in cities is cars. I am looking forward to more efficient transport that removes the need for private vehicles and opens up more of the tar to walking, bicycles and shared vehicles. Cities are our best chance to create communities where we can break down barriers and learn to live together. That needs space.

6. Should we sell public assets to fund public services?

I like the idea of Community Wealth Funds. Where public assets are held in custodianship not just for the current generation. The analogy of the fruits of the tree being fair game as long as you look after the tree, and use some of the fruits to grow more trees. Selling the asset to fund services doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Rather make the asset work and use the fruits to fund services... or put the money in people's hands to decide what services they buy.

7. Should political parties be allowed to receive money from companies?

I don't like partisan politics. I do think the US is an example of where money and lobbying have gone awry. An arms race where both sides spending cancels each other out in a Zero Sum Game. Transparency probably helps. In the Financial Services Industry, there has been a big change in terms of what companies are allowed to spend on intermediaries. I think that has helped. I think it is a problem that fundraising and sharing of ideas are so linked. I prefer the idea of us all being interested in building consensus and listening to all parties. We can do a better job with democracy. The mix with money is one of many problems.

8. Should governments fund research more or less?

There is always a trade-off between research and current expenditure. Some important areas of research are under-funded and others over-funded. The question for me is how do we ensure we are working on the most important problems? There is a tendency for people to build up the importance of their expertise in order to get funding. The funding becomes the focus. As we get richer, we can start stripping away these kinds of incentives through increasing Universal Basic Incomes etc. Combining improved incentives with better communication, I believe the community itself can find the right balance between how much is spent on the future, and how much is spent on now. The community itself can best decide how to be good custodians. 

9. What is more important, freedom or dignity?

I don't think it is a competition and I don't think values can be quantified. Values change as society changes and different communities make different moral trade offs. I believe most people value both freedom and dignity. Constraints on freedom make for better co-ordination and co-operation. Rule of law makes things work smoothly when everyone agrees on the rules and plays by them. Dignity gets fuzzy. Adam Smith spoke of money being put aside to maintain leaderships dignity. I think leaders can live simply. The Pope shows that. Most Monarchs, less so. Dignity also gets fuzzy with things like free speech. I am for different communities coming to different agreements about how to deal with these things. Allowing for a variety of combinations of moral ingredients.

10. If we have a global carbon reduction agreement, should trade be a vehicle for its enforcement?

Yes. In a world of scarcity, I do think markets are the most efficient vehicles (within agreed rules) to allocate things. If there is a limited supply, demand can push the price up till the demand decreases. The rules would need to allow for any unintended consequences, so should operate within a democratic system.

Los Angeles

Just three days in LA, so I dipped my toes in Santa Monica and Venice Beach. Saw friends who are reinventing themselves and diving into a world of creativity at the local art college. They talked me out of a visit to Hollywood, and instead we hiked, talked and just sat quietly. Most of the trip was an explosion of shared ideas. Californian Sun. Little blue beach houses. Volleyball. Experiments like Stockholm's Utegyms. Shared space. Outdoor Billionaires. For big kids who still love going to the park. A reminder of the consistent weather and urban sprawl of Johannesburg... but with a sea.

Potjiekos or Patchwork

I love the idea of Airbnb. On this trip, Gem and I have stayed in the homes of some really interesting people. Two doctoral students, the one in Chicago studying languages, the one in Vancouver studying communication. The couple in Seattle are working in Health Care and the Tech sector. Staying in people's homes while they carry on their lives, cooking dinner, going to work, de-stressing, is a much more real travel experience than the uniform hotels of business travel. Locals opening their homes.

Staying with us in Vancouver is another chap from Melbourne who is here learning to use a sword. As you do. Last night, the four of us had a wide ranging chat. Free speech and whether Trump is actually a good thing highlighting our sores so we can work at healing them. The water crisis in Brazil and what would happen if 20 million people suddenly have to vacate a major global city. Immigration. Colonialism. Racism. Mental Health. Drug issues. Poverty. Education. It is fascinating seeing similar problems from around the world but in very different settings. What if the oppressed minority were an oppressed majority? What if the problems are remote/elsewhere rather than local? What if the country were bigger/smaller, or wealthier/poorer, or independent/community based? What if the people 'who were different' were different. Looking at different combinations of cultures. Different cities. Different approaches.

One of the things I have been chewing on recently is how we balance our desire to build a world we understand (culture) with a world that is tolerant of other ways of doing things. The balance between Melting Pots (evolving culture) and Patchwork quilts (pockets of conserved culture). Cities seem designed for being melting pots (Potjiekos). They force tolerance and their character changes regularly and quickly. But change is emotionally difficult, and it is nice to be able to retreat to a place where you understand the set up deeply. Where you know and support the rules of the game. Where you are deeply embedded in the community.

Tolerance can be uncomfortable. We need a combination of Potjiekos and Patchwork.

Fuller Dining Hall Friendships

I have known a few of my closest friends almost all my life. We grew up together and have seen each other through some of the best and worst times of our lives. Some of my really good buddies come from work. I still find it amusing how much time we spend with colleagues relative to how much we spend with friends and family. As such, I never believed in the keeping work and friendship separate. What you spend most of your time on should be deeply personal. But the biggest chunk of those who I feel really know me comes from my days at University. From my days in the halls of Smuts and Fuller.

One of the paintings in the flames was of Sue Folb. She was the warden of Fuller when I was there. I had channeled my energy into the residences. One of the projects was an Orientation Week where we introduced new students to Cape Town and to each other. Students by their nature are figuring stuff out. Passionate. Active. I was one of those, and drove that energy and learning into O-Week. We used it as a way to bring together people from all sorts of different backgrounds. Mrs Folb helped channel my stubborn, noisy, ignorant energy. She was an ally. I can remember sitting on her couch as she listened to me, talked with me, mentored me about not trying to impose my ideas on other people. Even if I believed deeply in those ideas. Even if I was right. She taught me about building consensus.

Fuller was named after UCT's first female graduate. Megan Butler explains, 'She attended at a time when women were meant to "know their place" and later founded the residence for women to make it easier for others to attend university against the odds. She made campus a *more* inclusive place.' The painting of Mrs Fuller was in the flames too.

Megan was one of the people I met at university. I have written about how the Fuller Dining Hall is one of the models I think about for how we could build a happier world. Arriving in the hall, you could sit amongst any of the groups already there and chat. Outside the definition of yourself built over years at school, you could dive into new worlds. It is where I learnt from friends about the difficulties of coming into white dominated schools with a culture shock. It is where I met people who had come from difficult backgrounds to grasp at the opportunity education can offer.

As we get busier in life, friendships can get culled. A buddy and I joke that it is a little like the movie 'The Highlander'. Busyness steps in chopping heads off and you feel the quickening when a friendship circle shrinks as friends disappear. You worry that in the end 'there can be only one'. University was different. Smuts and Fuller were different. University was a time when you met lots of people. Your world view was challenged. The quickening came as you grew powerful through more connections. Broader understanding. A decolonised mind. 

'There can be only one'

Most of the weddings I go to are mini-reunions for those wonderful days. Busyness means I don't get to see those friends as much as I would like. At one of those weddings, I met a friend of the groom who became a friend. In that way, we are all friends with a few degrees of separation. That friend was John McInroy. He is one of the people that builds my confidence that we are moving forward. The moving can feel tough, but we are moving.

John started the Unogwaja Challenge a few years back. They cycle from Cape Town to the start of the Comrades Marathon over 10 days. Last year, he got off his bike and walked the 1700kms over the course of a month to have more conversations. The Red Socks Friday movement he has started aims at building and remembering the connections we have to others. There is a Red Sock Friday run at the Langa Hockey Club every Friday at 5pm. If you are in Cape Town, get there. Build friendships. Move forward. Like Mrs Fuller. Like Mrs Folb.

Build friendships. Like those built in the Dining Hall of Fuller. Learn words. Get fit. Do something.

#FriendshipMustRise

Creating Shared Space (with Gem)

Gem:

I spent two weeks visiting public libraries in Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. During those two weeks I used Airbnb. What motivates people to invite strangers into their private spaces? It's been clear that some people have needed the money. Others have wanted the company. Everyone has been friendly. I have invested time and energy in the people with whom I have stayed. My hosts have expected me to engage with them. I have had to communicate with them so that we can share space in harmony. The arrangement is very intimate - it's not like staying in a hotel.

A Helsinki Rainbow with a Gem at the end

Trev:

A hotel is a clear one way exchange. Perhaps the hotelier enjoys the industry and has a vision of what they are trying to create. But AirBnB, Couchsurfing and Hostels are all a little different. The connection is the main thing, and the place to stay is secondary. Yes, I do think financial considerations can be a driver in opening up spaces. We keep lots of things 'in case'. This waste can be eliminated through trusting other people to use what is yours when you don't need it. The exciting part of the sharing exchange comes when it is more subtle. When you start exchanging stories, relationships and flavour.

Gem:
I agree that it's nice to share. We've been doing this for centuries. My Grandmother lived in the village in which she was born. Everyone knew everyone; they shared everything. It was cheap to share back then. My Grandparents moved to live near my Great Cousin who babysat my Father when he was a baby. They trusted my Great Cousin to do a good job. The home-owners I stayed with in Europe trusted me to look after their home. An owner learns to share something and a borrower learns to take care of it. You both need to trust.

Trev:
And the sharing of trust is interesting because it builds on itself. When a normal exchange is made, it is transactional. Nothing is owed and the connection is temporary. When you stay in someone's home, or you share a meal, or someone helps you do something you need to do, there is something else going on. It definitely leaves a lot of people feeling uncomfortable. We don't know how to account for our responsibilities and expectations. It feels naked. Asking for things rather than buying them is hard. Saying No when people ask is hard. Giving without expectation of return is the heart of sharing.

Gem:
The onus is on the temporary visitor to prove his or her trustworthiness in return for trust that has already been given by the host. I'd like to return to my initial comment about communication. I communicated with my Airbnb hosts as a way of demonstrating that I was trustworthy. The ability to communicate became a valuable commodity in a sharing economy. Other hosts recognized it as a sign of trustworthiness - my hosts repeatedly noted 'good communication' in their feedback. But, there were limits to how often, and in what way, I could communicate. It was difficult to know where to draw the line.

Trev:
I do think things are less ambiguous when there is an exchange. It is the reason money is so effective at creating anonymous activity. How you do things matters less when the event is once off, and there is a lot of clarity around what is being given and taken. With the relationships where we are used to sharing, i.e. friends and family, clear communication is probably the most important thing. It takes time to learn the subtleties of what individuals expect and offer. The shared economy is trying to get us to trust more people, and almost instantaneously.

Gem:
Yes, I agree that money curtails a relationship, by which it makes it easier to understand boundaries. But, it also creates more complication as it replaces a gift with a commodity exchange. I have often been slightly confused by when/how you switch between these two forms of exchange - particularly when dealing with lovers, family and friends. When do you decide to cut a tie by introducing money; what does it mean for the relationship? I admire people who know when to negotiate the boundary between these two forms of exchange. I worry about the impact on trust.

Trev:
Airbnb is attempting to balance the two. Couchsurfing.com is a more genuine Sharing Economy. Your Grandparents would have lived in a fairly homogeneous environment with 'policing' mechanisms of gossip and geographical boundaries. Social Media makes it harder to escape into anonymity. Perhaps the connections facilitated by reviews and reputation start to create the boundaries necessary for trust? Even our homogeneous bubbles weren't truly homogeneous. We were still individuals trying to trust. Along with (hopefully) occasional family tiffs.

Gem:
Trust is being eroded all around us. Every day there are reports of less trust - less trust of the press, government, scientists, and celebrities; more information does not help. It simply compounds the distrust - as we don't know from whom the information comes. Trust is a product of trustworthy relationships - relationships where people have to be convinced by each other. If we introduce money, we cut ties, and don't have to invest in our relationships in the same way. So, Airbnb is good for trust, but it doesn't mean that trustworthy relationships are easy to negotiate, maintain, and secure.

Trev:
Trust is not easy. I think we are defensively wired to bunker down and build walls, surrounding ourselves with people we feel we understand. The disconnection from press, government, scientists and celebrities makes us suspicious. We are generally a rather suspicious bunch when we don't understand stuff. We don't readily hand out benefit of doubt. I think our curiosity will win the day though. Trusting people does open up our lives to incredible opportunities for meaningful connections. The brave amongst us will come back with tales of what lies beyond the uncomfortable conversations. The bounty of trust.

----

Follow Gemma on Twitter (@gemma_john), see her work at GemmaJohn.com, or read her other guest post 'Tourism at Home'

----

Better Interacting (with Rich)

I grew up in a Christian environment. My family went to the Methodist Church, but our parents didn't stop us from going off to other churches when we got old enough to follow our friends. I followed various friends to various churches. Richard Erasmus was my youth pastor at the Baptist Church during a very interesting period of my life from age 13 to 17. He was incredibly supportive in more ways than I can mention and has touched many peoples lives. The idea of a person whose job it is to care for his community is one of the great things religion gives society. Rich is a part of who I am. I have really enjoyed reconnecting with Rich via social media. We had a chat...

The Rich and Cindy Erasmus of my Youth (1996)

Trev:

Moral leadership traditionally came from those steeped in the tradition, culture and learning of the community. As communities have mixed and ideas have mixed, groups have split off. Within communities, sub-communities have broken off. I get worried that these 'holy' groups have become less of a place for people to gather, than people who agree to gather. Shared spaces are essential. It would be great if there were more shared spaces to discuss things that matter. There is an exchange of ideas on social media. But as conversation has shifted to an 'internet of things', an 'internet of relationships' requires physical space.

Rich:

I'm convinced that face to face connections experience dynamics that some communication tools (such as social media) cannot experience. The best of those (added) dynamics are found in events such as "coming home for the holidays/after a business trip". Nothing quite like seeing the family that you've missed for a while. It's in the intimacy of that face to face encounter that we can experience the love/connections that fill our emotional tank. However... it's also that space that has the most potential to fill our lives with toxic and bitter emotions. For good or for bad, the proximity is powerful. I would suggest it's the rules of engagement that have gone awol in recent times... individualism, independence, plurality... often these things have lead to less need for rules of engagement... after all, I can simply choose the easy path, to go my own way... again and again and again.

Trev:

I agree that a big issue we are working through is how we define ourselves. Are we individuals or are we a community? Top down defining of a community forces an individual to feel like if they disagree, they need to leave. Bottom up belief that there is no society, only a collection of individuals, ignores the power of seeing yourself as a part of the bigger whole. I don't think things have gone awol. 'The good 'ol days' illusion makes us think there was a time we all got along. I think we are better at getting along today. We just need to find ways, in person and on social media, of strengthening the connections.

Rich

Love that "top down/bottom up" perspective of yours... hope I can use it one day. Nevertheless, I would say we are plonkers not to recognise that some things have gone awol... which is not to say that we haven't (in many ways) improved. The natural, face to face, forums of a by-gone era (home life, market place discussions, neighbourhoods, family run businesses etc) have in the last few decades diminished in strength and significance. The worth of "those" old forums was that there was (I think) less opportunity to exit the conversation. Rules of engagement had to be determined... purely for the sake of survival. Shared spaces are essential, but it seems (as you have stated) that they are harder to find. Wouldn't you agree that a level of intentionality is required nowadays, that may not have been as necessary previously?

Trev:

I have actually thought about the 'escape hatch' problem. Ken Robinson spoke of how 7 of his 8 Great Grandparents lived within a few miles of each other. It wasn't a case of finding the perfect relationships. It was a case of working at the ones you had. At school we were 'stuck' in the same class with guys we didn't choose for 12 years. There were regular personality clashes while kids were learning their social skills. As adults when we clash, we just move somewhere else. Choose somewhere else. So I do agree that we don't fight as hard to fix things. I am just glad our bubble has been pricked. We should, as you say, think of some of the 'good stuff' and not reject everything when we realise our community doesn't define (or suit) us completely.

Rich:

It has (in a weird way) something to do with the spirit of adoption. At least at some level, adoption can be described as the act of inviting someone (a willing participant) into an inner circle. In this scenario, the relational issues are (to a large degree) sorted... I am stuck with you and you with me. Now, that we have the (committed relational) space to move in, we can get to grips with some of the issues that are close to our heart. Or to put it another way, our default setting when it comes to people around us is (often) tenuous at best but more often suspicious and shallow. If there is a "first hurdle" that needs to fall (in us finding the jewel of quality conversation), it is a greater willingness to adopt "others" into a relationship of trust and perseverance. It's at the hear of what Sofia Cavalletti once said, "Listening is a leaning towards others, the opening of ourselves in a receptive attitude toward the reality around us; it is only the capacity to listen that prevents us from revolving around ourselves."

Trev:

There is a lot to be said for knowing someone is not leaving no matter what. Unconditional love. It does open the possibility for deeper levels of honesty and being prepared to work through the more uncomfortable conversations. When you are constantly aware that someone might walk away, you are naturally going to be guarded. The problem with unconditionality is that it requires vigilance about staying kind in your communication. An edge of risk that you might lose someone makes you choose your words more kindly. The naughty child in you might test the boundaries of just how unconditional unconditional really is.

Rich:

We all have that kid in us. I guess we all have a level of intolerance (some of it legit). Churches are notoriously bad at this. We revel in the "insider/outsider" mentality (despite our "founder" being the exact opposite). Political parties are similar. Fashion trends may preach the same gospel, 'I'm in, you're out!'. It's everywhere. The alternative is to discover people like you Trev. You're an absolute breath of fresh air. In meeting people like you, we get a taste of another (far better) way of interacting. Social media reintroduced us back to each other. Maybe the gift of social media to us, is that we are introduced to an ageless, sexless, colourless conversation... that can translate into real life at some point. Whether it be around a cup of coffee, or in a pub, or at a running club.

Trev:

That is what I am hoping for. I like the idea of a world where we are less concerned by who we are as individuals or distinct groups. Less need for folders, more use of tags. I think we are mad up of a web of individual connections based on relationships, ideas, and actions. Within the web, individuals and groups aren't lost, they are just holey. They can be in multiple places at the same time. No one idea being wrong breaks the web. Each additional connection strengthens it. There are wonderful people in this world, full of energy, and the one thing is that connects us is that we all think and feel. It would be great to share that.

Lodging Ideas

Ask most people where they go if they really have to concentrate, and get something done, and it is almost never the office. Depending on the person, it may be a coffee shop, a library, a park, home or some other space that better suits them. A friend of mine recently Skyped me from his car. He was sitting outside so he didn't disturb his family, downloading his thoughts in what he called 'Genius mode'. It also meant he could turn on his massaging seats. How we spend our time is merging into more creative endeavours with computers doing the boring, repetitive stuff, and the boundaries between what is school, what is work, and what is our passion disappear. Designing happy lives often boils down to designing happy shared spaces.

Alex Read shared this article about a teacher spending two days as a student, and the lessons she learned. It is remarkably similar to what I learned from reading 'Brain Rules' by John Medina. The biggest take home I remember from that book was realising how much time we spend sitting, and how bad this is for thinking. We really are designed to normally be moving. Both pieces are reminders that how we learn and do, is as important as what we learn and do.

Yesterday I went to the Amsterdam Library (Openbare Bibiliotheek Amsterdam). My choice of Stockholm, Helsinki and Amsterdam was in part driven by stalking Gemma John as she does a tour of libraries around the area. A Social Anthropologist by training, she has transitioned, through Interior Design, to look at how people use space in order to inform decisions about the built environment. As someone who is looking to find cheekily cheap ways to spend time doing the things I love (learning and spending time with people), I admit to having largely forgotten about libraries. I am not quite as rigorous as she is in quizzing users (How they use space/where they sit/how long they spend there) so follow the work she is doing at Designing Libraries.

A Still Space in the Amsterdam Library

I think there is massive overlap in re-looking at how offices are designed, how schools are designed and how all the spaces we use are designed. The digital age has made ideas easier to shift around, but ideas only lodge when they matter to us. For things to matter, they need space, time, and personal connection. 

Together

While in Edinburgh I have been staying in a Hostel. This makes the travel part of my blogging a lot cheaper than if I needed my own space. A clean, comfortable bed, fast wifi and a good shower is enough. All that needs doing when I am in the room is sleeping, so having 9 other people in the dorm doesn't bother me. I am a fan of cohousing. Some of my best memories come from living in residence with a bunch of friends. When you have to organise to see people, even really close friends, sometimes time and life get in the way. It's not at all that you don't want to see them, there are just more clear and present dangers to fight.

There are some very obvious reasons why the advantages of communal living fall apart. On one night, a big red-bearded hipster spent most of the night reciting a poetry of sorts to himself. I say poetry because the Fringe was on, and I am giving him credit for creative surrealism. More likely it was just booze speaking. On another night about 7 people returned at 5 in the morning and decided some djing and dancing were in order. Mostly though, people have just slept when they were in the room and kept rather quiet. Eye covers and ear plugs and you are sorted.

Ear plugs are cheaper than a private room

I think the things that push people away from Communal living are partly a clash of habits, a lack of private space and a feeling that at some point you deserve your own space. If you share a kitchen, clearing up someone else's mess drives some people mad. Having people moan at them about the 'mess' drives others mad. Someone may be a great mate when you don't use the same sink. As layers of old food accumulate, warm fuzzy feelings can become more rare. Even if they are a great mate with similar habits and levels of cleanliness, often people just need to be in their bubble when they get home. They need to shift from a crazy work headspace and have no energy left for banter. The downside of sharing where you rest and recover is you can't be quite as selfish. You have to be nice. Sometimes nice requires more energy than is available. Which is a reason families end up bickering sometimes. They just aren't being nice to each other. People who love each other may treat each other so badly, it is hard to understand how they like each other. I think this is more often due to a lack of energy than maliciousness.

But shared living spaces can be awesome when they work well. Last night after the Hostel Bar closed, and the official music system was turned off, one chap started playing the piano. It was a lot of fun singing along to tunes that cross the imaginary borders that theoretically separate the united nations of hostel occupants. People from all over singing together. A happy place.

Finding More

On the day I arrived in Avalon at the start of my few months down under, my friend handed me a book he thought I'd like. So it makes sense to write about it on the day I am leaving. I am off to the airport to pick Rich and his family up. I have been pet sitting for them. The dogs and a cat have got on with me well. The other cat has been fine, but thinks I am an idiot. She could not have made it clearer that she wanted to go outside. But she is a sneaky cat, and Avalon is rather jungly, so I had jail warder instructions. Back to the book...

'The River Why' is novel about a young man, Gus, and his family. What triggered the suggestion was that Gus ends up in a cabin on the river living a very simple life. Rich and I had been talking about micro-cabins and how small we thought you could go and still live comfortably. During business travel, there are times when you can end up in rather fancy hotels but then only get to sleep in them. It is crazy. All you really want is a comfortable bed, a shower with good water pressure, the room to be clean and wifi. The same concept can apply for homes. If you live in a city with wonderful shared spaces, you probably don't need much more than that either.

The book was about much more than that though. It was beautifully written with lots of hilarious scenes. I had recently heard that Portland, Oregon is amazing. With this book set there, it only added to my desire to make my way out there at some stage. There is something magical about rivers, and although I am not a fisherman, it is not hard to understand the seduction that pulls people to the water. Although the writer cunningly makes small tweaks to hide the identity of the actual river. The tale was about people finding a story which helps them to piece things together. Gus loved fishing. It was everything for him. But through people he was able to find more. 

Third Places

I have for years been mulling over 'third places'. Not work. Not home. Places where we can come communally. Whether it is to meet people, exchange ideas, do something specific or just coming to be in a beautiful space you don't own. There are already places like that that are typically defined by affiliation to a particular group - Churches, yoga centres, retreats or cultural clubs. It would be great if we could get the equivalent without the group affiliation. Great cities also have great shared spaces. I am hopefully going to watch the cricket world cup semi-final at one of those shared spaces in Christchurch this afternoon. I will have to attempt to be quieter than normal.

Auckland has some cool shared space including great benches on the harbour

The economics of communal places aren't great despite the happiness they deliver. I think this is because they are great at delivering the kinds of things you can't price. Then there is the problem of the tragedy of the commons. We aren't very good at sharing. Perhaps we can get better? We were also racist, sexist, homophobic and all other sorts of nasty if you look back at videos of our past. It is impossible to find historic heroes that don't have the ability to disgust us in some way or other. You read the history of Genghis Khan in part with horror, and in part realising the peace premium that came from subjugating large chunks of the world. George Washington was a proud slave owner. Today's heroes are better. Then we discover flaws. But discovering flaws is how we improve and our heroes are just us - concentrated.

The world has only really accelerated its mixing in the last 200ish years. At the start of that, most of us where impoverished farmers. The stronger amongst us lived 'lavish' lives in exchange for organising the defences and monopolising violence. We aren't as impoverished any more. We don't have to be as scared of each other any more. Our big risks are shared and we can start acting together as custodians. If maturity is letting go of a fierce defence of your own story in exchange for the richness of shared stories, then we are getting better.

Perhaps we will get better at sharing? I think to share you need to feel secure that you already have enough. If we are just big kids, the confidence of knowing that you can always go back to mommy gives you the confidence to explore. Once we have the buffer of knowing we are okay, perhaps we can get to the good stuff.

I suspect a lot of the good stuff happens in places that aren't restricted. In places that aren't work and aren't home. In places where everyone can play.