9 ms·

(Disclaimer: Slightly off-topic. Also, it's not my intention to belittle their lifestyle. I hope I don't come across that way.) Some of the things they need ev

(Disclaimer: Slightly off-topic. Also, it's not my intention to belittle their lifestyle. I hope I don't come across that way.) Some of the things they need even in this disconnected lifestyle - like the mobile home, laptops, books, solar panels, batteries and even the slippers have to be made by someone doing a 9-5 job somewhere. The idea of civilization to me is to take advantage of these specialists who are really good at doing or manufacturing some of the things I need and in turn I become a specialist in something (probably one thing) which I contribute back to the society - it's a barter. That I don't have to do all the things I need to do to survive, seems efficient and effective. Also, not all of the jobs are going to be able to afford this "luxury".

sliverstorm 11y ago
There is definitely an irony to people who make a show of disconnecting, but do so on the largess of society. In this piece, the guy who gets free electricity and shelter from his friend's shed. Or what I used to run into frequently, the rebel wanderer who eschews The System and couch surfs at the houses of his office worker friends. I don't mind people who want to disconnect, but when you've got a campstove, a phone, a laptop, photovoltaic panels, a car... you're still enjoying the fruits of progress & society with the rest of us.
- comrh 11y ago
  I think the mindset is more "bring the parts you like, leave the parts you don't." I know there are some hypocritical people (especially the Anarcho-primitivism people) that have romanticized ideas but the people in this article at least just seem to like it and aren't trying to avoid all progress or society.
- bmj 11y ago
  So in order to "disconnect" you need to leave everything behind, go into the woods, and make everything from scratch?
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    No, the ones that irk me are specifically the people who make a big show about everything that's wrong with modern life and capitalism and such, and how much better it is to live off the land free of the corrupting influences society, and yet don't see how much they still depend on "The System" they profess to hate so much. The ones in this piece don't particularly seem to be that type, I suppose, so maybe it's not relevant.
    - bmj 11y ago
      Fair enough. That's a valid point.
    - joe5150 11y ago
      See also: RMS and his willingness to avail himself of other people's cell phones and grocery store club cards even though such things are verboten surveillance instruments.
      - function_seven 11y ago
        Isn't using someone else's store card a great subversion of their surveillance? I share a card with about half a dozen other people. Ralph's computer must scratch it's head when it looks at "my" purchasing patterns.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        joe5150 11y ago
        Probably not, and that's not his reasoning anyway.
    - beatpanda 11y ago
      In my experience, the people you're describing don't really exist; you're just projecting.
    - 11y ago
OneOneOneOne 11y ago
Right on. When considering lifestyle choices I ask myself how many people could live the same way. If it turns out to be a small minority before collapse, I reject it as a path for myself. To me off grid lifestyle seems a retreat from the goods of society without a commensurate benefit to self and others. As an art movement or experiment I say fine.
- dougmwne 11y ago
  I’m sure some of these off-grid philosophies don’t hold water when you put it like that. However, consider that many people out there have been dealt a bad hand by society. They’ll never have the options or opportunities that most of us posting here take for granted. “Doing your part for society” may work for most of us, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Some people out there are going to have more peaceful and productive existences living at the margins.
  - OneOneOneOne 11y ago
    I cannot say whether this is the right choice for others. An off grid, self reliant lifestyle is very attractive to me. This is my counter argument for myself.
- Retric 11y ago
  I suspect you could scale the 'off grid' lifestyle to around 1/2 the US population without many issues. Web + FedEx means a lot of jobs can be done remotely. Consider plenty of teachers work remotely even if most people think of it as a face to face job. Even some doctors have started to work remotely let alone the classic 9/5 office worker. Sure, city's are a far more efficient use of land and energy, but at least in the US we still have a lot of open space. PS: My only gripe is people think of this as a 'green' lifestyle. Generally, living in a city high-rise and using public transit is far better for the environment.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
    >I suspect you could scale the 'off grid' lifestyle to around 1/2 the US population without many issues. As you spread out the population, the cost of FedEx deliveries is going to grow. Now you can drop off goods in a city via a highly efficient train, have that switched to a truck, and have it delivered to the end customer. If everyone is off the grid in the wilderness, that train becomes a lot less useful to deliver goods. Now you've got to reach a larger area to serve the same number of people. > Web + Fedex means a lot of jobs can be done remotely A lot of jobs can be done remotely, but that doesn't mean they could be done remotely without cost. Many people are less efficient when working remotely. I find communication to be much harder when remote than when in person, especially as issues get more complex.
xaver 11y ago
Unless they've stolen the goods they're using, they're interacting with civilization/capitalism on its own terms. What more can you ask?
pointytrees 11y ago
I had already bookmarked this post because I love the idea. But your response is incredibly thought provoking. I love the idea of moving to Alaska or Canada in the wilderness, and figuring out how to survive and stay connected. I'm thinking on the fly, but I think I would be contributing to society. My specialty is web programming and software architecture. I'd even go so far as to call it an art form. I encounter a problem. Sleep on it for a few days, then bam, things settle into place and I spend a couple days solid programming. Those days that I'm "sleeping on it" if I'm at work, I'm often distracted by day-to-day tasks that usually could have been handled by someone else. I'm not sold on the concept one way or the other. I do like the idea of a middle-ground solution. I really appreciate your counter-argument. Good to think about at least.
VLM 11y ago
You can live disconnected, while still participating occasionally in the labor market. Lifetime jobs at a single employer died in roughly my grandpa's generation. And I'm not that young. My father went into semi-retirement in the 90s and he RVed roughly all summer and due to lack of connectivity technology at that time, he only contracted in the winter unless it was an emergency (charged higher rate!). RV life is a lot simpler with a house and mailing address. I spent a lot of time in the 90s and 00s picking up my parent's mail and generally keeping an eye on their house, which wasn't so bad because they lived kinda between my house and my work at that time, once I had kids it was more of a hassle but I still made the time. I remember how creepy it was watching 9/11 coverage on their big TV when they were in some campground a thousand miles away, wondering if this is "the big one" and should they be packing up to come here or should I be packing up to join them?! Also when you get too old/sick you just move back into the house permanently, or take shorter RV trips anyway. Anyway, in summary, a home base strategy with "far less than full time employment" works pretty well, and if you're going to have "far less than full time employment" you need to do something with your spare time between work, and some folks like to travel and camp in their extensive spare time. So you end up with people disconnected and wandering the earth, most of the time, yet occasionally slaving away 9-5. For my dad it was voluntary in a semi-retired state of being, but mere education and talent do not guarantee employment for anyone, so I'm sure for some its involuntary. I suspect most of humanity in the history of our species never had a job, or never had a 9-5 job, they had a life instead. My grandfather never completely stopped working into his 80s... I don't have any elderly role model to show me how to retire and do nothing. Personally when I retire I'm going back for the chemistry degree I always wanted and who cares if there's no jobs... after all, I'm already retired!
grecy 11y ago
You're absolutely right, but the point means nothing. Capitalism says that if a person wants to work 100+ hours a week and drive a Porsche, they can. If another person only wants to work 10 hours a week and walk everywhere, they can. Simply because Porsche sell $200K+ cars, does not mean I'm obligated to work enough to pay for that. >have to be made by someone doing a 9-5 job somewhere Actually, the person making those things could also have chosen to live a simpler life and only be working part time. It's their choice.
- lovemenot 11y ago
  > Actually, the person making those things could also have chosen to live a simpler life and only be working part time. It's their choice. I did not interpret the point you responded to the same way as you. It's not about that individual's choice, but about the necessity for some person to be producing those products under those working conditions, in order for the off-grid folks to be able to consume them. For some people, there's an implicit hypocrisy in visibly "opting-out" of a lifestyle if your new lifestyle necessitates that others have to fill in behind you. For others, yourself included I guess, it's just a market and anything goes.
  - grecy 11y ago
    >under those working conditions Why do you assume those are the only working conditions possible? >your new lifestyle necessitates that others have to fill in behind you My lifestyle doesn't "necessitate" anyone to do anything. I buy solar panels because they are available and I can afford them. If all of a sudden nobody wanted to work more than 10 hours a week and solar panels were not available or too expensive, I would not buy them. What each individual does with their time is up to them. When the world changes because of how people spend their time (i.e. stuff might get way cheaper, or way more expensive, or self-driving cars may or may not become a thing), I, and everyone else, will continue to re-evaluate their choices about how they spend their time, and adjust accordingly.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

sliverstorm 11y ago

There is definitely an irony to people who make a show of disconnecting, but do so on the largess of society. In this piece, the guy who gets free electricity and shelter from his friend's shed. Or what I used to run into frequently, the rebel wanderer who eschews The System and couch surfs at the houses of his office worker friends. I don't mind people who want to disconnect, but when you've got a campstove, a phone, a laptop, photovoltaic panels, a car... you're still enjoying the fruits of progress & society with the rest of us.

comrh 11y ago
I think the mindset is more "bring the parts you like, leave the parts you don't." I know there are some hypocritical people (especially the Anarcho-primitivism people) that have romanticized ideas but the people in this article at least just seem to like it and aren't trying to avoid all progress or society.
bmj 11y ago
So in order to "disconnect" you need to leave everything behind, go into the woods, and make everything from scratch?
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  No, the ones that irk me are specifically the people who make a big show about everything that's wrong with modern life and capitalism and such, and how much better it is to live off the land free of the corrupting influences society, and yet don't see how much they still depend on "The System" they profess to hate so much. The ones in this piece don't particularly seem to be that type, I suppose, so maybe it's not relevant.
  - bmj 11y ago
    Fair enough. That's a valid point.
  - joe5150 11y ago
    See also: RMS and his willingness to avail himself of other people's cell phones and grocery store club cards even though such things are verboten surveillance instruments.
    - function_seven 11y ago
      Isn't using someone else's store card a great subversion of their surveillance? I share a card with about half a dozen other people. Ralph's computer must scratch it's head when it looks at "my" purchasing patterns.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - joe5150 11y ago
        Probably not, and that's not his reasoning anyway.
  - beatpanda 11y ago
    In my experience, the people you're describing don't really exist; you're just projecting.
  - 11y ago

OneOneOneOne 11y ago

Right on. When considering lifestyle choices I ask myself how many people could live the same way. If it turns out to be a small minority before collapse, I reject it as a path for myself. To me off grid lifestyle seems a retreat from the goods of society without a commensurate benefit to self and others. As an art movement or experiment I say fine.

dougmwne 11y ago
I’m sure some of these off-grid philosophies don’t hold water when you put it like that. However, consider that many people out there have been dealt a bad hand by society. They’ll never have the options or opportunities that most of us posting here take for granted. “Doing your part for society” may work for most of us, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Some people out there are going to have more peaceful and productive existences living at the margins.
- OneOneOneOne 11y ago
  I cannot say whether this is the right choice for others. An off grid, self reliant lifestyle is very attractive to me. This is my counter argument for myself.
Retric 11y ago
I suspect you could scale the 'off grid' lifestyle to around 1/2 the US population without many issues. Web + FedEx means a lot of jobs can be done remotely. Consider plenty of teachers work remotely even if most people think of it as a face to face job. Even some doctors have started to work remotely let alone the classic 9/5 office worker. Sure, city's are a far more efficient use of land and energy, but at least in the US we still have a lot of open space. PS: My only gripe is people think of this as a 'green' lifestyle. Generally, living in a city high-rise and using public transit is far better for the environment.
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  >I suspect you could scale the 'off grid' lifestyle to around 1/2 the US population without many issues. As you spread out the population, the cost of FedEx deliveries is going to grow. Now you can drop off goods in a city via a highly efficient train, have that switched to a truck, and have it delivered to the end customer. If everyone is off the grid in the wilderness, that train becomes a lot less useful to deliver goods. Now you've got to reach a larger area to serve the same number of people. > Web + Fedex means a lot of jobs can be done remotely A lot of jobs can be done remotely, but that doesn't mean they could be done remotely without cost. Many people are less efficient when working remotely. I find communication to be much harder when remote than when in person, especially as issues get more complex.

xaver 11y ago

Unless they've stolen the goods they're using, they're interacting with civilization/capitalism on its own terms. What more can you ask?

pointytrees 11y ago

I had already bookmarked this post because I love the idea. But your response is incredibly thought provoking. I love the idea of moving to Alaska or Canada in the wilderness, and figuring out how to survive and stay connected. I'm thinking on the fly, but I think I would be contributing to society. My specialty is web programming and software architecture. I'd even go so far as to call it an art form. I encounter a problem. Sleep on it for a few days, then bam, things settle into place and I spend a couple days solid programming. Those days that I'm "sleeping on it" if I'm at work, I'm often distracted by day-to-day tasks that usually could have been handled by someone else. I'm not sold on the concept one way or the other. I do like the idea of a middle-ground solution. I really appreciate your counter-argument. Good to think about at least.

VLM 11y ago

You can live disconnected, while still participating occasionally in the labor market. Lifetime jobs at a single employer died in roughly my grandpa's generation. And I'm not that young. My father went into semi-retirement in the 90s and he RVed roughly all summer and due to lack of connectivity technology at that time, he only contracted in the winter unless it was an emergency (charged higher rate!). RV life is a lot simpler with a house and mailing address. I spent a lot of time in the 90s and 00s picking up my parent's mail and generally keeping an eye on their house, which wasn't so bad because they lived kinda between my house and my work at that time, once I had kids it was more of a hassle but I still made the time. I remember how creepy it was watching 9/11 coverage on their big TV when they were in some campground a thousand miles away, wondering if this is "the big one" and should they be packing up to come here or should I be packing up to join them?! Also when you get too old/sick you just move back into the house permanently, or take shorter RV trips anyway. Anyway, in summary, a home base strategy with "far less than full time employment" works pretty well, and if you're going to have "far less than full time employment" you need to do something with your spare time between work, and some folks like to travel and camp in their extensive spare time. So you end up with people disconnected and wandering the earth, most of the time, yet occasionally slaving away 9-5. For my dad it was voluntary in a semi-retired state of being, but mere education and talent do not guarantee employment for anyone, so I'm sure for some its involuntary. I suspect most of humanity in the history of our species never had a job, or never had a 9-5 job, they had a life instead. My grandfather never completely stopped working into his 80s... I don't have any elderly role model to show me how to retire and do nothing. Personally when I retire I'm going back for the chemistry degree I always wanted and who cares if there's no jobs... after all, I'm already retired!

grecy 11y ago

You're absolutely right, but the point means nothing. Capitalism says that if a person wants to work 100+ hours a week and drive a Porsche, they can. If another person only wants to work 10 hours a week and walk everywhere, they can. Simply because Porsche sell $200K+ cars, does not mean I'm obligated to work enough to pay for that. >have to be made by someone doing a 9-5 job somewhere Actually, the person making those things could also have chosen to live a simpler life and only be working part time. It's their choice.

lovemenot 11y ago
> Actually, the person making those things could also have chosen to live a simpler life and only be working part time. It's their choice. I did not interpret the point you responded to the same way as you. It's not about that individual's choice, but about the necessity for some person to be producing those products under those working conditions, in order for the off-grid folks to be able to consume them. For some people, there's an implicit hypocrisy in visibly "opting-out" of a lifestyle if your new lifestyle necessitates that others have to fill in behind you. For others, yourself included I guess, it's just a market and anything goes.
- grecy 11y ago
  >under those working conditions Why do you assume those are the only working conditions possible? >your new lifestyle necessitates that others have to fill in behind you My lifestyle doesn't "necessitate" anyone to do anything. I buy solar panels because they are available and I can afford them. If all of a sudden nobody wanted to work more than 10 hours a week and solar panels were not available or too expensive, I would not buy them. What each individual does with their time is up to them. When the world changes because of how people spend their time (i.e. stuff might get way cheaper, or way more expensive, or self-driving cars may or may not become a thing), I, and everyone else, will continue to re-evaluate their choices about how they spend their time, and adjust accordingly.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]