When I read your first posting, what came to mind for a successful Nth generation iteration is the Mormon flight into what became Utah, the lifestyle of the Pennsylvania Dutch, or even the Great Society programs of LBJ. Each of these groups grew in number and held as a coherent people with a shared view and mission. The first two are religious in nature, while the third is political; all of them have a unique way of living, the Amish most notably on how different it is from the rest of the U.S. The Amish are the most oriented to a networking system, i.e. a community. The only group that has a direct financial giving situation is the Great Society but it is not a "gift giving" scenario central to the experiment, while the others are giving of time and labor. The other contrast between these and the thesis is that there is no "patron," the closes are President Johnson or Bringham Young/Joseph Smith.
What comes to mind now may be a doubling down on of the Amish idea, in the sense that GHP, in your estimation, are inward looking seeking the advancement of it members. The Mormon community is Amish in the attributes of emphasis on familiar ties, but outward looking as it is evangelical seeking to incorporate new members (in ideally units of families) for a specific purpose, the religious. So it straddles the definition of an open and closed society. As for LBJ, the Great Society is not a network colelction and is bureaucratic.
When I read your first posting, what came to mind for a successful Nth generation iteration is the Mormon flight into what became Utah, the lifestyle of the Pennsylvania Dutch, or even the Great Society programs of LBJ. Each of these groups grew in number and held as a coherent people with a shared view and mission. The first two are religious in nature, while the third is political; all of them have a unique way of living, the Amish most notably on how different it is from the rest of the U.S. The Amish are the most oriented to a networking system, i.e. a community. The only group that has a direct financial giving situation is the Great Society but it is not a "gift giving" scenario central to the experiment, while the others are giving of time and labor. The other contrast between these and the thesis is that there is no "patron," the closes are President Johnson or Bringham Young/Joseph Smith.
What comes to mind now may be a doubling down on of the Amish idea, in the sense that GHP, in your estimation, are inward looking seeking the advancement of it members. The Mormon community is Amish in the attributes of emphasis on familiar ties, but outward looking as it is evangelical seeking to incorporate new members (in ideally units of families) for a specific purpose, the religious. So it straddles the definition of an open and closed society. As for LBJ, the Great Society is not a network colelction and is bureaucratic.
This is a great series. Plans along these lines are where we should put our energy. Also, human nurturing institutions HNI is a helpful concept