As non-materialists, Natural Humanists believe that, ideally, all products should be owned communally, rather than privately, whenever this is reasonable, more environmentally-responsible, and likely to reduce the enslavement of any workers required to produce, maintain or dispose of a particular product.
They recognise that this avoids unnecessary duplication, reduces significantly the total number of each type of product required in the world, and also significantly reduces the amount of waste, at the end of a product’s life, while also encouraging responsible and beneficial cooperation between users of each product.
They believe that, whenever it’s appropriate, all of a Natural Humanists’ current possessions should ideally be shared with all other people who have a need to use them. Whenever they have a need to use a product that they don’t currently own, they believe they should first consider sharing somebody else’s, rather than buying their own, or, if this isn’t possible, they should consider buying that product communally, and sharing it with other people who need to use it, with all of the costs of buying and maintaining it also being shared.
This could easily be facilitated, by the use of a local, regional or international charity, which manages all Natural Humanists’ current possessions, as part of a ‘Product Library’, ensuring that they’re always clean, well-maintained and safe to use, and that everybody who needs to borrow them can do, as effectively and efficiently as possible, and with as little environmentally-damaging transportation of the item as possible.
This charity could arrange for worn-out or damaged products, to be repaired or replaced with the greenest, most long-lasting and most effective items possible, at the lowest possible cost, taking advantage of bulk-buy discounts, and could ensure that any products which had reached the end of their serviceable life were responsibly recycled or disposed of.
The charity could take similar care, to communally acquire any new products that are needed by Natural Humanists, but which are not currently available to share, or are in too high a demand. This might include new innovations, whenever such innovations genuinely and meaningfully improve the quality of human life. They believe that any such new products should not promote materialism, or irresponsibly harm the environment, or any of its natural inhabitants, and should not unnecessarily ‘enslave’ any human being involved in any stage of that product’s, or its raw materials’ creation, transportation, storage, retailing, maintenance and eventual disposal.
Natural Humanists believe that, ideally, they should only own what they need, and even then, they should communally own as many of these possessions as possible, whenever this is appropriate and they get far more pleasure from sharing things, than from being the only person that owns, uses and gains benefit from them.
Communal Housing
Natural Humanists believe that all homes should ideally be communally-owned, and that, wherever possible, facilities that can safely and happily be shared, should be communal. For example, small, but very carefully-designed, pleasant, individual stylish flats in a highly land-efficient high-rise building, with communal wraparound cantilever balconies on each floor of the building, which can also be used for outdoor strolls, of unlimited length, with immediate views over wild countryside that surrounds the building, on all sides.
An attractive on-site combined café, coffee shop and bar, could provide all of the meals, drinks and snacks residents ever need, to consume either in this pleasant communal space, or for residents to consume in their own flats, within that same building, possibly automatically delivered by a small robotic delivery vehicle, and all provided on a not-for-profit basis, so that each flat doesn’t require its own fully-equipped kitchen and dining room.
This would also ensure that residents do not need to duplicate tasks that can be better performed communally, giving residents more time to perform more worthwhile and meaningful activities, and ideally removing the need for all residents to own or use their own private equipment in their own individual flats, such as ovens, food-mixers, saucepans, and fridges, as well as allowing all residents of the building to socialise daily, and to develop close, meaningful relationships.
They believe that communal-ownership of homes and possessions is also highly beneficial in promoting non-materialism and cooperation, allows very easy sharing of any personal possessions, and also allows like-minded people, with similar views and lifestyles, to live together, but with complete privacy, allowing them to socialise easily, to provide each other with emotional and practical support, and to celebrate each other’s attempts to live a fun, meaningful and responsible Natural Humanist lifestyle.
Such ‘Natural Humanist Communities’ could be for adults (or over 16s) only, with all residents voting to decide whether naturism is permissible in all, some or none of the building’s communal areas and its outside spaces, and whether this should be all or just some of the time.
If naturism in communal areas was agreed, no visitors under 16 would be allowed on the premises at any time, or would only be allowed to enter or remain in the building at times designated as ‘clothing compulsory’ in communal areas. All visitors would have to be registered by a pre-appointed resident monitor, or monitoring panel, and would have to use their fingerprints to gain access to both the building, and to any permanently or temporarily restricted naturist areas of that Natural Humanist Community. This could easily be overridden, whenever necessary, if a pre-agreed number of pre-approved Natural Humanist Community residents agreed to any unapproved person or people entering the building or area.
Alternatively, a Natural Humanist Community could be for people of any age, including young families, in which case, naturism would never be permitted in any unapproved communal areas of the building, including any unapproved outside areas, although all residents, including under 16s would, of course, be free to practise naturism within their own homes, in line with whatever rules their own family or individual household chose to set, to ensure their safety.
If pre-agreed by all residents, naturism could be practised in specific communal on-site naturist facilities, like saunas, which were monitored by A.I., could only be accessed using fingerprints or facial recognition, and would not allow access to under 16s at all, or would only allow their access at times when naturism was not being practised.
After following established safeguarding policies, and with the agreement of their parents, and of all residents of the building, specific pre-approved residents or visitors under 16 could be allowed in specific communal naturist areas, while naturism was being practised, if they had been pre-approved, and were accompanied, throughout, by a pre-approved chaperone, which could easily be monitored by A.I., if both the young person and their chaperone wore a bracelet that could be detected by A.I., and if fixed CCTV, or CCTV worn by the chaperone, monitored that child and any adults or children nearby, throughout that child’s time in any communal area of the building.
If, for any reason at all, it was not considered appropriate for a particular named adult or child to be in a particular communal area of the building while they themselves, or any child, or a specific child, was practising naturism, then A.I. could monitor and control this, by not allowing that person into the building, or into any communal naturist area of the building, at any time when a child had been pre-approved to practise naturism, which could, if pre-approved, be all of the time.
Again, this could be ensured by using fingerprints or facial recognition, to monitor and control that person’s access to the building, or to particular areas and, if necessary, by the compulsory wearing by that person of a bracelet that allows A.I. and CCTV to monitor all of their movements and actions.
If preset to do so, Artificial Intelligence could ensure that nobody under the age of 16 could ever walk through, look into or enter any corridor, outside space or communal room or area of the Natural Humanist Community, if there was anybody else in that space, whether they were naked or not.
This wouldn’t affect any pre-approved naturist resident, or any pre-approved naturist visitor, who would have an implanted chip, or an unlockable chip bracelet, which Artificial Intelligence would detect, so that they could move freely through, and use all parts of the Natural Humanist Community at any time, including while naked, unless any unapproved person, or just a specific person of concern, was also in that area of the building, in which case, Artificial Intelligence could temporarily shut and lock any (or all) doors in the Natural Humanist Community, at any time, to facilitate the safe movement of that naturist through the Natural Humanist Community, or to ensure their safe use and enjoyment of communal naturist facilities.
These doors would only lock for the exact amount of time that the unapproved person was using or moving through that space, and this would be automatically overridden if the need for emergency evacuation from the building was detected.
This would allow under 16s free naturist use of the building, and all its indoor and outdoor facilities, at all times, but not when any child or adult was in the vicinity, who was not considered suitable to be in their presence while naked, or had not been pre-approved by both their parents and other residents, or was not pre-approved for specific activities, like naturist saunas, in which case A.I. would prevent any such unapproved person, or person of concern, from ever looking into, entering, or passing through any corridor, room, or indoor or outdoor area which that approved under 16 naturist was using.
If required, and pre-approved by all residents, Artificial Intelligence could carefully assess each situation. For example, it might permit a pre-approved adult, wearing a chip bracelet, to accompany a toddler into a communal bathroom, if nobody else was in the room and if the door was automatically locked to prevent anybody else entering, but, depending on how it had been pre-programmed, it might not permit an adult to accompany a 13 year old into a communal bathroom, if that person was independent with personal hygiene tasks.
As each family would have their own rules on such things, Artificial Intelligence could accommodate such differences, for example a family, or certain family members, who prefer to shower together, in a communal shower room, or like to use a communal sauna together, would be allowed by Artificial Intelligence to do this, if pre-approved by all members of that family, or by all members of that Natural Humanist Community, but Artificial Intelligence wouldn’t allow people who had not been pre-approved for such specific activities to ever be in the same room or area at the same time.
Natural Humanists believe that all rented housing, whether owned by private landlords or social housing providers, should be run like a hotel, in that every single human being should be able to move into any rented property at any time, without restriction, if there is a vacancy, and they should then be free to stay there for as long as they wish, and should be free to move to a different property as often as they wish to as well, without the need to provide references, have a credit check, or give advance notice to a landlord, as long as rent is always paid a month in advance, with this rent paid by the local council if the person is in receipt of Housing Benefit.
They believe that this should be the same worldwide, and that, ideally, all properties should be small, comfortable, well designed and multi-storey, and should ideally have high quality, spotlessly clean and well-maintained communal facilities, wherever appropriate.
They believe that no council should have ‘local occupancy’ restrictions which deny people from outside of the area from living there, as long as it will be their only home, and that everybody should be free to remain in any property for the rest of their lives, even if the owner of their rental property changes during this time, as long as they behave in pre-agreed socially-responsible ways.
They also believe that, if too many people want to live in a particular area, then all local land-inefficient buildings should be demolished and replaced with high-rise flats, so that everybody that wants to live there, can do. They believe strongly that living in popular areas should never be the privilege of the rich, or of those people considered by landlords to be ‘premium’ tenants.