Sign in for free: Preamble (PDF, ebook & audiobook) + Forum access + Direct purchases Sign In

Unscarcity Research

Settler Economics: Why Utopias Fail (And What Works Instead)

Compiled: February 2026

23 min read 5102 words /a/settler-economics-research

Settler Economics: Why Utopias Fail (And What Works Instead)

Research Notes – Verified Facts and Sources

Compiled: February 2026

1. Notable Failures with Specific Data

1.1 Masdar City (Abu Dhabi)

Metric Detail
Launched 2006
Developer Mubadala Development Company (state-owned)
Original budget US$22 billion
Revised budget US$18.7-19.8 billion (cut after 2008 financial crisis)
Original completion target 2016 (first phase habitable by 2009)
Current completion target 2030
Planned population 50,000 residents + 1,500 businesses
Actual population (2023) ~15,000 live and work there; only ~5,000 are actual residents
Area developed by 2016 Less than 300,000 sq metres (less than 1/6 of planned area)
Original vision World’s first zero-carbon, zero-waste city
Revised vision (2022) Downgraded to “low-carbon” – 50% emissions reduction target

What went wrong:

  • The 2008 global financial crisis hit shortly after launch, slashing the budget from $22B to ~$18B and causing major construction delays.
  • Parent company Mubadala aligned with Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), shifting focus to renewable energy investments outside the UAE.
  • The original zero-carbon, zero-waste vision proved impractical and was publicly abandoned in 2022.
  • Despite achieving LEED Communities Platinum Certification, the city is largely empty relative to its goals.

Sources:

1.2 Fordlandia (Brazil, 1928)

Metric Detail
Founded 1928
Founded by Henry Ford
Purpose Rubber plantation + model American town in the Amazon
Land concession 10,000 km2 on the Rio Tapajos, near Santarem, Para
Planned population 10,000
Investment lost US$20 million (1945 dollars) = ~$349-360 million in 2024-2026 dollars
Sold back 1945, by Henry Ford II, to the Brazilian government
Rubber produced for Ford cars Zero. “Not one drop of latex from Fordlandia ever made it into a Ford car.”

Ford’s specific mistakes:

  1. Agricultural ignorance: Rubber trees in the wild grow apart as a natural defense against disease. Ford planted them close together in plantations. By end of 1929, 95% of rubber tree seedlings were dying or dead from tree blight, Sauva ants, lace bugs, red spiders, and leaf caterpillars.
  2. Cultural imperialism: Ford imposed brown rice, whole-wheat bread, canned peaches, and oatmeal on Brazilian workers, along with American-style housing and social restrictions, causing significant friction.
  3. Incompetent management: The first manager, Danish sea captain Einard Oxholm, had zero agricultural experience.
  4. No local knowledge: Ford never visited Fordlandia personally and ignored tropical agricultural expertise.

Sources:

1.3 Seasteading Institute

Metric Detail
Founded 2008
Founders Wayne Gramlich and Patri Friedman (Milton Friedman’s grandson)
Peter Thiel involvement $500,000 initial seed capital, total $1.7 million invested; resigned from board in 2011
Permanent ocean residents to date Zero
Sovereign seasteads created Zero
Closest attempt 2017 MOU with French Polynesia for a “seazone” – expired end of 2017, government said it was “not a legal document”

Why it hasn’t worked:

  • No structure on the high seas has ever been created and recognized as a sovereign state.
  • Blueseed (floating tech incubator) went “on hold” in 2014 and was later described as “failed” due to lack of investors.
  • MS Satoshi (floating residence in Gulf of Panama, purchased 2020) failed to obtain insurance and was resold in 2021.
  • Political and commercial barriers, not technology, remain the primary obstacles.

Sources:

1.4 New Harmony (Indiana, 1825)

Metric Detail
Founded Early 1825
Founded by Robert Owen (Welsh industrialist and social reformer)
Purchase price $150,000 (bought from the Harmonist religious community)
Peak population ~1,000 residents (by end of first year)
Duration ~2 years (collapsed by March 1827)
Owen’s personal loss 40,000 pounds sterling – 80% of his fortune

Why it failed:

  1. Free-rider problem: When the hardest-working members realized they would earn the same benefits as the laziest, they stopped working.
  2. No screening: Owen welcomed anyone, attracting many who wanted the benefits without contributing.
  3. Food crisis: The community could not produce enough food to be self-sufficient; homelessness and famine became rampant.
  4. Governance chaos: When Owen returned in April 1825, he found 700-800 residents and a “chaotic” situation. The constitution adopted in May 1825 only loosely outlined expectations.
  5. Intellectual talent, not settlers: Owen attracted the “Boatload of Knowledge” (scientists, artists, educators aboard the keelboat Philanthropist, winter 1825-26), but not enough practical farmers and tradespeople.

Sources:

1.5 Auroville (India, 1968)

Metric Detail
Founded February 28, 1968
Founded by Mirra Alfassa (“the Mother”), partner of Sri Aurobindo
Location ~10 km north of Puducherry, Tamil Nadu
Original vision Universal town for 50,000 residents of all nationalities
Current population (2024) ~3,300 (2,665 adults + 631 children); declined from 3,368 in 2023
Nationalities represented 55 nations
Top nationalities India (1,702 / 51.5%), France (401), Germany (227), Italy (164), US (100)
Governance Auroville Foundation Act 1988 (Indian Parliament): 3-tier system

Governance structure:

  • Governing Board: 7 members selected by the Indian government
  • Residents’ Assembly: All official residents
  • International Advisory Council: 5 members selected by the Indian government

Current governance crisis (2024-2025):

  • The Governing Board is attempting to rapidly increase population to 50,000 through “unilateral and coercive measures,” protested by the Residents’ Assembly and International Advisory Council.
  • Reports of “unprecedented level of control” over residents’ movements, work, and private spaces.
  • Corruption allegations in land acquisitions, with Land Board members exploiting roles for personal profit.

Funding model:

  • Community-generated funds make up over 90% of annual income.
  • Commercial units contribute 33% of their profits to Auroville’s Central Fund.
  • Government of India finances only a small portion.
  • Foreign donations from international Auroville bases supplement the budget.

Sources:

1.6 Prospera (Honduras)

Metric Detail
ZEDE law passed September 2013 (after replacing 4 Supreme Court justices and amending the constitution)
Prospera founded 2017 (incorporated 4.7 acres in Roatan, December 2017)
Founder Erick Brimen (Venezuelan-born), through Honduras Prospera Inc. (Delaware)
Key investors Balaji Srinivasan, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen (via Pronomos Capital); Coinbase Ventures (Jan 2025)
Total investment Over $100 million raised
Businesses launched 200+
Residents and e-residents ~2,000 (many paid a fee for the option of living there or remotely incorporating a business)
Physical residency cost $1,300/year (foreigners), $260/year (Hondurans)
ISDS damages claim $10.7 billion against Honduras under DR-CAFTA

Governance:

  • Council of 9 members: 5 elected, 4 appointed by Honduras Prospera Inc.
  • Decisions require 2/3 majority, giving Prospera Inc. effective veto power.

Legal/political crisis:

  • 2022: President Xiomara Castro banned ZEDEs.
  • September 2024: Supreme Court declared ZEDEs unconstitutional with retroactive effect.
  • Prospera filed $10.7 billion ISDS claim under the DR-CAFTA trade agreement.
  • February 2025: Arbitration tribunal ruled Prospera’s claim can proceed.
  • Local opposition: Disrupted water supply in Crawfish Rock (Afro-Caribbean village on Roatan).
  • 2026: Inauguration of new president Nasry Asfura has “revived hopes” for the company.

Sources:

1.7 The Venus Project / Jacque Fresco

Metric Detail
Research center established 1980 in Venus, Florida
Formally founded 1985 by Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows; incorporated 1995
Physical footprint 21-acre Center in Venus, FL with 10 buildings, hundreds of models, 5,500+ drawings
Core idea “Resource-Based Economy” – abolish money, use technology to manage resources
Jacque Fresco died May 18, 2017
Cities built Zero
Mainstream exposure Featured in Peter Joseph’s 2009 film Zeitgeist: Addendum

Why it didn’t materialize:

  1. No real-world implementation: Filmmaker William Gazecki observed that Fresco “never built actual office buildings, manufacturing plants, or circular cities.” He noted Fresco was “not a collaborator.”
  2. Inability to reach decision-makers: Fresco himself said, “Because I can’t get to anybody.”
  3. No economic pathway: Technologies weren’t developed because they weren’t in the economic interests of those in power.
  4. Movement fragmentation: Fresco and Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist Movement) parted ways in 2011.
  5. Funding by selling books/lectures: In the 1990s, Fresco and Meadows supported the project through freelance inventing, architectural modeling, and invention consultations. Recent fundraising campaigns have netted ~$100,000 at most.

Sources:

2. Notable Successes with Specific Data

2.1 Israeli Kibbutzim

Metric Detail
First kibbutz Degania, 1910
Peak population ~129,000-130,000 members (1989), ~3% of Israel’s population
Population in 1950 67,000 (7.5% of Israel’s population)
Current population ~125,000 members across ~250 kibbutzim (<2% of population)
Privatized (“renewed”) 188 kibbutzim (72%)
Still communal 65 kibbutzim (25%)
Integrated model 9 kibbutzim (3%)

Economic model evolution:

  1. Original model (1910-1980s): Collective ownership, communal child-rearing, equal budget regardless of work, direct democracy.
  2. Crisis (1980s-1990s): High inflation and interest rates caused severe economic crisis. Many kibbutzim went bankrupt. Thousands of members left.
  3. Debt restructuring: 1989 and 1996 government-bank-kibbutz debt arrangements catalyzed major reforms.
  4. 2005 reclassification: Israel established the “renewing kibbutz” category, allowing increased privatization while maintaining some communal aspects.
  5. Current “renewed” model: Work branches operate as cooperatives with differentiated salaries. Communal coffers still fund elderly care, healthcare, education, and culture. This arrangement rescued kibbutzim economically and made them more attractive to new members.

Why the model changed: The purely communal model created free-rider incentives and could not compete economically in a globalized market. Privatization allowed individual incentives while preserving community infrastructure.

Sources:

2.2 Shenzhen (Special Economic Zone)

Metric Detail
SEZ established 1980
Population (1980) ~30,000-330,000 (sources vary: 30,000 in the core fishing village; 332,900 in the broader area)
Population (2023) 17.79 million
GDP (1980) 270 million yuan
GDP (2023) 3.46 trillion yuan
GDP growth 1980-1984 58% annually (vs. 10% national average)
GDP growth 1980-1990 ~60-fold increase
Gross industrial output 1980-1990 200-fold increase
Initial SEZ size 330 sq km

Why Shenzhen succeeded while other Chinese SEZs struggled:

Factor Shenzhen Other SEZs
Proximity to capital Adjacent to Hong Kong (access to capital, talent, technology) Zhuhai near Macau (less dynamic); Xiamen, Shantou less connected
SEZ size (1980) 330 sq km Xiamen: 2.5 sq km; Shantou: 1.6 sq km; Zhuhai: 6.1 sq km
Culture Immigrant city – no strong local customs; investors felt ownership Zhuhai, Shantou: historic cities with strong local culture, own languages
Policy innovation First contract labor system, wage system, land auction (1987) Slower to adopt pro-business policies
Key companies Huawei (1987), ZTE (1985) founded there Zhuhai overbuilt infrastructure; Shantou plagued by corruption/smuggling

Comparative GDP growth 1980-1984:

  • Shenzhen: 58% annual
  • Zhuhai: 32% annual
  • Xiamen: 13% annual
  • Shantou: 9% annual
  • National average: 10% annual

Sources:

2.3 Singapore

Metric Detail
Independence August 9, 1965 (expelled from Malaysia)
GDP per capita (1965) US$516
GDP per capita (2024) US$88,000-104,000 (sources vary)
Growth rate Average 9.5% real GDP growth since 1965; 12.7% annually 1965-1973
Public housing 77-80% of population lives in HDB flats (up from 9% in 1960)
HDB homeownership ~90% of HDB residents own their flats
Total HDB flats Over 1 million across 24 towns and 3 estates

Lee Kuan Yew’s key policy decisions (timeline):

Year Decision
1959 Five-year plan: urban renewal, public housing, women’s emancipation, education expansion, industrialization
1960 Housing Development Board created; more public units completed in 3 years than preceding 32 years
1961 Economic Development Board established with $100M budget (1961-64) for industrialization
1961 UN economists advise rapid industrialization to absorb unemployed workers
1965 Expelled from Malaysia; becomes independent city-state
1960s-70s English adopted as working language; anti-corruption professionalized; MNC tax incentives; port/airport modernized
By 1980s Per capita income second in East Asia only to Japan

Starting conditions in 1959:

  • 70% of population lived in slums
  • Double-digit unemployment
  • Half the population illiterate
  • Small domestic market, no natural resources

Sources:

2.4 Los Alamos (Manhattan Project)

Metric Detail
Established 1943
Oppenheimer’s initial estimate 50 scientists + 50 technicians
General Groves revised estimate 300 (tripled Oppenheimer’s number)
Population (end of 1943) ~3,500 (including families)
Population (end of 1944) ~5,700
Population (end of 1945) ~8,200 (Oppenheimer originally planned housing for 30 families)
Special Engineer Detachment peak 1,823 men (August 1945)
Military police peak 9 officers + 486 soldiers

How Oppenheimer attracted talent to a remote mesa in New Mexico:

  1. Personal recruitment: Oppenheimer spent the first three months of 1943 traveling to Cornell, Princeton, MIT, University of Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, Purdue, Columbia, Iowa State, and more.
  2. The mission: The urgency of wartime and the fear that Germany might develop the bomb first was the primary motivator.
  3. Natural beauty: “The remoteness of the area appealed to military planners, but it was the beauty of the surrounding landscape that Oppenheimer used to recruit.” He expressed a strong preference for the site, hoping the landscape would inspire the scientists.
  4. Families allowed: Married scientists were permitted to bring families – a key factor in successful recruitment.
  5. Intellectual density: The concentration of top minds became self-reinforcing; scientists wanted to work with other top scientists.

Challenges:

  • Constant military surveillance (phones tapped, mail opened)
  • Scientists came as civilians but lived under military control
  • Oppenheimer himself was under the closest surveillance of all

Sources:

2.5 SpaceX (McGregor, Texas / Starbase, Boca Chica)

Metric Detail
McGregor facility Engine factory and test site
Starbase (Boca Chica) Launch site, incorporated as a city May 20, 2025
Direct jobs created 2,100+ at Starbase
Incorporation vote May 3, 2025 (Cameron County voters approved)
Location rationale Proximity to equator (higher rotational speed = less propellant)

Talent attraction strategy:

  • Mission-driven: The Mars mission and making humanity multi-planetary serves as a powerful ideological draw.
  • Competitive compensation: Competitive salaries, comprehensive health benefits, and equity packages.
  • Community building: Constructing community center, school, clinic, and additional housing at Starbase.
  • STEM outreach: Partnerships with national and local organizations for K-12 STEM education.
  • Dedicated local recruiters: Technical Recruiter positions posted specifically for McGregor.

Note: Specific data on how SpaceX recruited people to move to rural McGregor, Texas in the early days (pre-2010) is sparse in available sources. The Starbase/Boca Chica story is better documented. The general pattern mirrors Los Alamos: mission-driven relocation, building infrastructure around the mission, and the self-reinforcing effect of talented people attracting more talented people.

Sources:

3. Academic Research on Intentional Communities

3.1 Success/Failure Rates

  • Fewer than 5% of intentional communities last five years (Fellowship for Intentional Community data).
  • However, long-standing communities with relatively stable memberships do exist, so the picture is more nuanced than the headline statistic suggests.
  • Most conclusions about intentional communities are based on historical research on communities that no longer exist, creating survivorship bias in the opposite direction.

Source: Measuring Success in Intentional Communities - Sociological Spectrum

3.2 Key Factors That Predict Success vs. Failure

From academic surveys of currently living communities:

  1. Community decision-making structure is more important than any other factor. Communities with egalitarian decision-making structures report satisfaction ratings 0.879 higher on average.
  2. Meaning in life and social support were the most important predictors of high subjective well-being.
  3. Service-oriented communities (outward-facing) survive longer than retreat communities (inward-facing/escapist).

Source: Measuring Success in Intentional Communities - Dancing Rabbit

3.3 Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s Commitment Mechanism Framework

Key publication: “Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities” (American Sociological Review, 1968); expanded in Commitment and Community (Harvard University Press, 1972).

Kanter studied 19th-century American utopian communities and identified:

Three types of commitment:

  1. Continuance commitment (staying because leaving is costly) – supported by sacrifice and investment
  2. Cohesion commitment (staying because of attachment to the group) – supported by renunciation and communion
  3. Control commitment (staying because of belief in the group’s norms) – supported by mortification and transcendence/surrender

Six organizational mechanisms:

Mechanism Type How it works
Sacrifice Continuance Members give something up to join (raises cost of leaving)
Investment Continuance Members invest resources that would be lost if they left
Renunciation Cohesion Members give up outside relationships
Communion Cohesion Shared rituals, collective activities build bonds
Mortification Control Ego-stripping, confession, mutual criticism
Transcendence Control Charismatic leadership, ideology, spiritual meaning

Key finding: Successful (long-lasting) communities employed significantly more of these six mechanisms than unsuccessful (short-lived) ones.

Contemporary extension: Kanter found that 1960s-70s communes fell into two types:

  • Retreat communes (escapist, low commitment mechanisms) – tended to fail
  • Service communes (outward-facing, selective membership, mission-driven) – tended to survive

Sources:

4. Planned Cities That Actually Succeeded (and current mega-projects)

4.1 Brasilia

Metric Detail
Construction period 1956-1960 (41 months)
Inaugurated April 21, 1960
Designers Lucio Costa (plan), Oscar Niemeyer (buildings), Roberto Burle Marx (landscape)
President Juscelino Kubitschek
Population at inauguration (1960) ~140,000
Population (1970) 537,000
Population (2010) 2.5+ million (Federal District)
Current population ~2.8 million (Brazil’s 3rd largest city)
UNESCO World Heritage 1987 (Pilot Plan inscribed for modernist principles)

Successes:

  • Successfully relocated the national capital from Rio de Janeiro.
  • Became an international landmark in urban planning history.
  • Population growth has been continuous and substantial.

Failures:

  • Original ambition to guarantee quality of life for all residents failed. Market forces quickly segregated the city by class.
  • The Plano Piloto (central area) became exclusive to upper strata; poor residents were pushed to remote satellite towns.
  • Designed for the automobile, eliminating walkability, spontaneity, and street life.
  • Low-income residents face difficulty accessing the central city.

Sources:

4.2 Chandigarh (India)

Metric Detail
Designed by Le Corbusier
Founded Post-1947 Partition (Punjab needed a new state capital)
Design concept City as human body: head (Capitol Complex), heart (City Centre), lungs (leisure valley/greens), intellect (cultural/educational), circulatory system (7V road network), viscera (Industrial Area)
Original planned population 500,000
Current population 1.1+ million (3x the original design capacity)
Literacy rate Over 86%
Human Development Index Ranked #1 in India
Quality of life Ranked among cleanest cities in India; one of the happiest and wealthiest populations

Why it’s considered a success:

  • Ranks first in India on Human Development Index, quality of life, and e-readiness.
  • Attracts students and professionals from across India for education and job opportunities.
  • Clean, well-planned infrastructure has endured for decades.

Challenges:

  • Population has tripled beyond the designed capacity of 500,000.
  • This overcrowding strains original infrastructure.

Sources:

4.3 Nusantara (Indonesia – New Capital)

Metric Detail
Location East Kalimantan (Borneo)
Purpose Replace Jakarta as national capital
Initiated by President Joko Widodo
Current president Prabowo Subianto (since Oct 2024)
Current population 147,000 (existing villages)
Phase I budget (2022-2024) 89 trillion IDR
Phase II budget (2025-2029) 48.8 trillion IDR ($2.99 billion) – a significant reduction
State funding trajectory ~$2B (2024) -> $700M (2025) -> $300M allocated (2026)
Private investment Rp 65.3 trillion (~$4 billion) from 49 business actors (as of Sept 2025)
Phase I progress Presidential palace and central admin core ~80% complete; 47 apartment towers for civil servants
Civil servants to relocate (2026) 1,700-4,100 ordered to move
Target for functioning political capital 2028

Current concerns:

  • Described as facing “ghost city” fears.
  • State funding has dropped dramatically under new president.
  • In December 2025, officially downgraded to “political capital” only (not full national capital).

Sources:

4.4 NEOM / The Line (Saudi Arabia)

Metric Detail
Announced 2017
Original budget (NEOM overall) $500 billion
The Line initial cost estimate (2021) $1.6 trillion
Updated internal estimate (2022) ~$4.5 trillion
Latest estimated total cost $8.8 trillion and counting
Amount spent to date At least $50 billion
PIF write-down $8 billion linked to NEOM
Completed (late 2025) 2.4 km section (of planned 170 km), no residents
Construction status Suspended by PIF on September 16, 2025
Original population target 9 million for The Line
Revised target Fewer than 300,000 by end of decade
Full completion now projected 2045
Workforce cuts 1,000+ employees relocated to Riyadh (July 2025)

Criticisms:

  1. Financial viability: Lower oil prices, weak foreign investment, and budget shortfalls.
  2. Design feasibility: Imperial College London professor called the timeline “unrealistic.”
  3. Management problems: 2025 Wall Street Journal report found “evidence of deliberate manipulation” by project managers.
  4. Human rights: Thousands forcibly displaced; villages razed.
  5. Strategic pivot: Saudi economy minister publicly stated reprioritization toward technology and AI.

Sources:

5. The Economics of Voluntary Migration to Remote Settlements

5.1 What Motivates People to Move to Empty/Remote Places?

Economic motivations (dominant driver):

  • Labor market opportunities and income expectations are the primary pull factors.
  • Research shows men who migrated from rural areas ended up doing 93% better financially than brothers who stayed; men from urban areas did 42% better after migrating.
  • Households with poorer economic prospects are more likely to send migrants.

Non-economic motivations:

  • Ideological commitment (religious communities, political utopias)
  • Mission-driven purpose (Manhattan Project, SpaceX)
  • Quality of life / lifestyle (urban-to-rural migration emerging in developed countries)
  • Escape from persecution or instability (refugee settlements)

5.2 Historical Patterns

  • Rural-to-urban has historically dominated (Shenzhen being the extreme example: 330,000 to 17.79 million in 40 years).
  • Urban-to-rural is an emerging phenomenon in developed countries, driven by remote work and desire for rural lifestyle.
  • Frontier settlement historically required either economic desperation (immigrants), ideological fervor (utopians/religious groups), or state compulsion (Soviet-era planned cities, forced relocations).

5.3 Long-Term Effects of Settlement

Research on refugee settlements shows that large settlements led to “large and persistent increases in the size of the local population, spurred local industrialization, and increased per-capita income, particularly in the long run.”

Sources:

6. Synthesis: Patterns Across All Cases

What Kills Utopias (Failure Patterns)

Pattern Examples
Top-down design without organic growth Masdar, NEOM, Fordlandia, Brasilia (partially)
No economic engine New Harmony, Venus Project, Auroville (partially)
Cultural imperialism / ignoring local context Fordlandia, Prospera (Crawfish Rock), NEOM (forced displacement)
Free-rider problem / no commitment mechanisms New Harmony, early kibbutzim (resolved through privatization)
Dependence on single funder/patron Fordlandia (Ford), Masdar (Mubadala), NEOM (PIF)
Vision exceeds physics/economics NEOM ($8.8T cost), Seasteading, Venus Project
Political vulnerability Prospera (ZEDE law repealed), Nusantara (funding cut by new president)

What Makes Settlements Work (Success Patterns)

Pattern Examples
Clear economic advantage for settlers Shenzhen (proximity to HK capital), Singapore (trade hub), kibbutzim (land grants + ideology)
Mission that transcends individual benefit Los Alamos (win the war), SpaceX (Mars), kibbutzim (build a nation)
Adaptive governance Kibbutzim (evolved from communal to hybrid), Singapore (pragmatic policy iteration)
Allowing families Los Alamos (key recruitment factor), Singapore (HDB housing), kibbutzim
State backing without state micromanagement Shenzhen (SEZ autonomy), Singapore (strong but pragmatic state)
Proximity to existing economic networks Shenzhen (Hong Kong), Chandigarh (Punjab), Singapore (Strait of Malacca)
Commitment mechanisms (per Kanter) Successful kibbutzim, religious communities

Uncertainty Flags

The following items have some uncertainty in the data:

  1. Shenzhen 1980 population: Sources give conflicting figures – 30,000 (fishing village core) vs. 332,900 (broader administrative area). Both may be correct at different geographic scopes.
  2. Singapore GDP per capita 2024: Sources range from ~$88,000 to ~$104,000 depending on nominal vs. PPP and exact methodology.
  3. Masdar City actual spending to date: The $22B was the original budget; it was cut to ~$18-19.8B, but actual amount spent is not clearly reported in available sources.
  4. Prospera physical residents: The “2,000 residents and e-residents” figure conflates physical and digital residents. The actual number of people physically living in Prospera on Roatan may be significantly smaller.
  5. SpaceX McGregor early days: Very little documented evidence about early (pre-2010) recruitment strategies for the McGregor facility specifically.
  6. Venus Project total funding: Lifetime donations/funding data is not publicly available. Only specific campaigns ($50K-$100K range) are documented.
  7. Auroville annual budget: The exact total annual budget figure was not available in current sources. The “over 90% community-generated” figure is reported by Auroville itself.
  8. The “fewer than 5% last five years” statistic for intentional communities is widely cited but the original methodology is not well-documented. Newer research using surveys of currently living communities challenges some of the older assumptions.

Share this article:

Share Share Share
Unscarcity Book Cover

Get the full blueprint

Available on Amazon

Get on Amazon
On this page