The other side to this is that the aforementioned lifestyle is usually described as impoverished (and a product of injustice, not choice). It cannot be the case

The other side to this is that the aforementioned lifestyle is usually described as impoverished (and a product of injustice, not choice). It cannot be the case that living by meager means is at once virtuous/satisfying, and terrible. I vaguely detect a kind of cognitive dissonance about this. And to be clear, extreme poverty has its own clear definition by the UN, which does not apply here. Poverty is simply: the state of having few material possessions or little income. Presumably, like this Samoan. Does the romanticization go any further than poverty tourism? This reminds me that Thoreau is popularly denigrated today for being hypocritical, but no one seems to make the connection that it's for (more or less) the same thing. If someone is very well shielded from possible deleterious effects of the state of poverty (not including food and shelter), they're still benefiting from wealth directly or indirectly.