5 ms·

> “They didn’t care about possessions,” Roberts says, “and they lived in housing fit for animals.” I find it interesting how disrespectfully nose up folks talk

> “They didn’t care about possessions,” Roberts says, “and they lived in housing fit for animals.” I find it interesting how disrespectfully nose up folks talk about humble people like the Cedar Choppers, when if we all continued to live like they did, we wouldn't be in this climate mess we are in. It's caring about possessions and extravagant homes (unfit for animals?) that has destroyed the planet for all animals.

usefulcat 7y ago
If we lived like they did, we'd probably also have half the life expectancy and way more deaths during childbirth, just to name a couple of differences.
- mc32 7y ago
  That’s an extreme of course, but we have examples from other small communities which shun luxuries to some extent like mennonite and Amish communities. In any event we don’t need everyone to live barebones but even 30-40% volunteering or seeking this lifestyle could help against our mass consumption society. At least a significant portion of people wouldn’t live connected lives 24x7. Maybe 12x7. That could reduce energy consumption.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    I think the movement's already started to some effect with modern homesteaders. https://psmag.com/environment/opting-homesteading-matter-today-77062#.c4pghodw2 https://psmag.com/environment/opting-homesteading-matter-tod... https://www.literallydarling.com/blog/2016/11/04/millennials-find-home-homesteading-movement/ https://www.literallydarling.com/blog/2016/11/04/millennials...
    - davidw 7y ago
      That sounds good, but realistically, and perhaps somewhat differently from what most people imagine, denser city living (as opposed to suburban sprawl) is probably the best bet for the environment for most people who can't go live in the woods.
      - ksdale 7y ago
        There's also a growing urban homesteading movement that combines the benefits of density with some of the benefits of self-sufficiency, a reduced environmental footprint, and the added bonus of potentially living in a city filled with green stuff!
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  I disagree. In fact, the opposite could be true. The focus on material possessions like clothes, diamonds, cars, homes, and just in general -- consumption -- has made us less healthy than we otherwise would be and we don't have money to spend on good food, the time to exercise or find peace of mind. Just because we got bigger houses and less polio in the same timeline doesn't mean those too things are correlated to the same cause. In my experience, most of the scientific researchers producing cures for disease and prolonging life aren't doing it for material wealth. There's a deeper drive to it than that. Maybe the progress in healthcare proceeds against the tide of social forces. It probably does, considering doctors artificially limit the supply of doctors, precisely so they can buy bigger houses, fancier cars, and more jewelry. It's estimated that Jonas Salk would have made $7 Billion if he'd patented the polio vaccine. I believe if we are going to reverse the damage we have done to the planet, we have to invert our social reward structure. We should shame those who spend extravagantly and praise restraint.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Living like this would imply living without a car(?) and more geographically spread out, less connected/more insular lives, with less money to pay for health insurance. I suppose it depends on how you interpret the parents "If we lived like they did". I don't think its reasonable to spin out a scenario where healthcare would be better, because all the elements of supplying healthcare become harder. I don't think it would necessarily be worse overall though.
davidw 7y ago
I cringed at the 'fit for animals' phrase too. Imagine if the author had used it regarding, say, some other group. That said, it's certainly possible to live in a simple, low-resource way without being disorderly and unclean. I think along the lines of those rural places with a whole bunch of shit strewn about the yard when I think of 'living like animals', as opposed to a small, simple cabin in the woods.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  From experience, it's difficult to clean when nothing has a place and your living area is too crowded. It's not hard to end up with a different baseline, just look at how many elderly people become hoarders. Unfortunately, humans are adept at adapting, even when we are adapting to worse conditions.
gerbilly 7y ago
> I find it interesting how disrespectfully nose up folks talk about humble people like the Cedar Choppers They denigrate them because their lifestyle makes them uncomfortable. It makes them uncomfortable because they are free in many ways that middle class people are not. They are free of our social norms and they could earn a weeks income in a day selling wood. It probably made them question their life choices and the fairness of the system.

usefulcat 7y ago

If we lived like they did, we'd probably also have half the life expectancy and way more deaths during childbirth, just to name a couple of differences.

mc32 7y ago
That’s an extreme of course, but we have examples from other small communities which shun luxuries to some extent like mennonite and Amish communities. In any event we don’t need everyone to live barebones but even 30-40% volunteering or seeking this lifestyle could help against our mass consumption society. At least a significant portion of people wouldn’t live connected lives 24x7. Maybe 12x7. That could reduce energy consumption.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  I think the movement's already started to some effect with modern homesteaders. https://psmag.com/environment/opting-homesteading-matter-today-77062#.c4pghodw2 https://psmag.com/environment/opting-homesteading-matter-tod... https://www.literallydarling.com/blog/2016/11/04/millennials-find-home-homesteading-movement/ https://www.literallydarling.com/blog/2016/11/04/millennials...
  - davidw 7y ago
    That sounds good, but realistically, and perhaps somewhat differently from what most people imagine, denser city living (as opposed to suburban sprawl) is probably the best bet for the environment for most people who can't go live in the woods.
    - ksdale 7y ago
      There's also a growing urban homesteading movement that combines the benefits of density with some of the benefits of self-sufficiency, a reduced environmental footprint, and the added bonus of potentially living in a city filled with green stuff!
anon1m0us 7y ago
I disagree. In fact, the opposite could be true. The focus on material possessions like clothes, diamonds, cars, homes, and just in general -- consumption -- has made us less healthy than we otherwise would be and we don't have money to spend on good food, the time to exercise or find peace of mind. Just because we got bigger houses and less polio in the same timeline doesn't mean those too things are correlated to the same cause. In my experience, most of the scientific researchers producing cures for disease and prolonging life aren't doing it for material wealth. There's a deeper drive to it than that. Maybe the progress in healthcare proceeds against the tide of social forces. It probably does, considering doctors artificially limit the supply of doctors, precisely so they can buy bigger houses, fancier cars, and more jewelry. It's estimated that Jonas Salk would have made $7 Billion if he'd patented the polio vaccine. I believe if we are going to reverse the damage we have done to the planet, we have to invert our social reward structure. We should shame those who spend extravagantly and praise restraint.
- benj111 7y ago
  Living like this would imply living without a car(?) and more geographically spread out, less connected/more insular lives, with less money to pay for health insurance. I suppose it depends on how you interpret the parents "If we lived like they did". I don't think its reasonable to spin out a scenario where healthcare would be better, because all the elements of supplying healthcare become harder. I don't think it would necessarily be worse overall though.

davidw 7y ago

I cringed at the 'fit for animals' phrase too. Imagine if the author had used it regarding, say, some other group. That said, it's certainly possible to live in a simple, low-resource way without being disorderly and unclean. I think along the lines of those rural places with a whole bunch of shit strewn about the yard when I think of 'living like animals', as opposed to a small, simple cabin in the woods.

pnutjam 7y ago
From experience, it's difficult to clean when nothing has a place and your living area is too crowded. It's not hard to end up with a different baseline, just look at how many elderly people become hoarders. Unfortunately, humans are adept at adapting, even when we are adapting to worse conditions.

gerbilly 7y ago

> I find it interesting how disrespectfully nose up folks talk about humble people like the Cedar Choppers They denigrate them because their lifestyle makes them uncomfortable. It makes them uncomfortable because they are free in many ways that middle class people are not. They are free of our social norms and they could earn a weeks income in a day selling wood. It probably made them question their life choices and the fairness of the system.