Hello Geoffrey,
I apologise for the delayed response; I've been travelling recently, but responding to your comment has been on my mind.

You bring up some insightful points that align with my current findings. I agree that the distinction between short-term and long-term missions is crucial when discussing interpersonal relationships in confined environments.

For the short-term three-month confinement project I've been planning, I've chosen to minimise the emphasis on encouraging sexual contact. This approach is taken primarily to maintain the focus on the mission objectives. Nevertheless, the provision of private single bedrooms allows for individual personal needs to be met, if desired.

As you pointed out, when it comes to long-term missions - extending over decades or even generations - the equation changes significantly. It would be necessary to consider relationship dynamics amongst the adult crew and the unique requirements and complexities of raising children in such an environment. This introduces a whole new set of variables to consider, including education, socialisation, and overall development from infancy to adulthood.

Thanks again for your comment, I would be happy to chat more about the topic if you felt like it!
Tereza

Thanks for raising an important question Goeffrey. I am not an expert on this topic and don't feel qualified to comment, except that our norms are obviously far from a global optimum. I think this underscores a more significant point which is that any such project should have an interdisciplinary team behind it, including at least consulting experts on topics such as sexuality. Another approach that has been floated for civilizational shelters in particular is that it might make sense to directly select a group to avoid issues such as harassment, for instance, a carefully selected single-sex group (i.e. likely a female group).

Not conferences specifically, but more spaces where EAS work and gather in general, like offices, hubs, etc., but I guess in some sense conferences would also fall into this category, yes.

Hi Martin, thanks a lot for the comment & thanks for the clarification on the topic, Peter!

As you stated, less abundant funding has already started to negatively impact some EA offices and this trend will probably continue in the months/years to come.

The agenda is still very much in the making, but having time and space to get together to think about how to spend resources wisely and focus on creating spaces that carry the most potential to support the community seems to me like a valuable exericise, especially given the financial situation.

Also, I would be very interested in finding out how others have dealt with the funding situation as there might be many lessons to be learnt across different types of spaces and expertise.

Hey Max, thanks a lot for the response! I don't think I generally disagree with any of the points you are mentioning above.

It is important to stress we are not proposing people move to Sandusky, especially at this stage it is about providing a place to run retreats, come and work remotely for a few weeks/months, run fellowship, focus on getting some deep work done while being able to take part in what Sandusky has to offer. This means people from abroad might still be able to come and take part (I, for example, don't have US citizenship).

Long term, I would love to work on projects to establish hubs outside of the US (being Czech, I see the benefits of having a thriving EA community outside of the US!). This project, however, is a great way to learn about setting up such places, knowledge I will be able to use when working on future projects. For me, this project is as much about learning as it is about Sandusky as a place in particular, which provides a great platform to test ideas. We are hoping to document the process to create a 'hub-creation package' of some sort to help make such projects run more smoothly every time a new one happens.

I hope this explains my thinking a little bit, your comments definitely got me thinking, thanks a lot for bringing them up! Would be happy to discuss this further on a call if you thought that might be helpful. 

Hi Max, thanks a lot for this comment! 

I generally agree that there need to be hubs located outside of the US, and that possibly, this needs to be prioritized. However, I strongly disagree with the premise that we need to choose any single location for an EA hub and reject all others. I think that working on multiple types of hubs in different locations is the way to go. If there are communities within the US who might want to support an EA hub that's easily accessible, yet outside of the core EA hub locations, I fully support this. And if you aren't a US citizen, you can come and spend a few months in the US without a work permit, I don't think my post suggested we want people to move there forever or to immigrate to the US in order to come and utilize the space. 

With that said, I am all for supporting efforts to create hubs outside of the US though and appreciate you stressing this out.

Haha, thanks a lot, will fix this!

Hi Adeel, no, this is an in-person event happening in Oxford, UK! 

Great!

Hi Sawyer, thanks for this question! We are in touch with Fønix and think these are both valid approaches in moving the realization of shelters forward.

We believe there is great value in getting together at SHELTER Weekend while being mindful of the fact that there will most probably be different organisations and approaches pushing shelters forward in the future. Ulrik has been warmly invited to come to SHELTER Weekend!