3 ms·

I wish people could enjoy and appreciate a house like this or a self sufficient hobby farm, or a "down-shifting" lifestyle without it being part of some greater

by netsp 17y ago

I wish people could enjoy and appreciate a house like this or a self sufficient hobby farm, or a "down-shifting" lifestyle without it being part of some greater anti-industrial ideology. Why does eating locally need to be justified in terms of food miles or global warming? Why does the author here who has obviously taken on a very enjoyable & fulfilling project creating something beautiful, need to take a poke at manufactured housing as some sort of evil (which makes housing more affordable for other people). Why can't it just be that he doesn't like manufactured housing.

enneff 17y ago
You ask an odd question, paraphrased: "Why can't he be some of the things he is, while not being others?" Part of the reason he's done it is because he has these views. You can't ask him to separate them out. And I can understand it, because I share some of his views. If anything, it's admirable that he's walking the walk as well as talking the talk. Some people do enjoy living 'off the grid' (so to speak) and aren't as radical as this guy. They just less likely to set up web sites about what they've done, as they've no motivation to promote their message (if they even have one).
- netsp 17y ago
  I'd prefer to stay away of calling him radical. Both building & living in that house seems pleasant to me and to many of the commentators here. As I suppose is implied above, I challenge the notion that in this case (and many others), ideas about ecologically sustainability really do logically imply that people should build their own houses, live off the grid, eat locally grown foods, make their own yoghurt etc. I think That the case is mixed (at best). I think that this is all besides the point anyway. I think that many people enjoy building their own houses, live off the grid, eat locally grown foods & make their own yoghurt. However, they seem to want these things to be moral imperatives, not just preferences. Superficially, it's similar to people that like to photograph unusual doors or meet descendants of historical characters. It gives them a framework to travel & meet people. I have no issues with that. But this case is problematic because it's political. it implies there are benefits to this far beyond the personal enjoyment of the individual. I think the house is beautiful. I appreciate that he is an ethical consumer with regards to his chosen building materials. But I reject the case that manufactured housing is bad.
  - dkokelley 17y ago
    However, they seem to want these things to be moral imperatives, not just preferences. I think that sentence summarizes well the point you want to make. I'm sure there are people who do have a preference to live this way without any eco-political agendas. I think I might be one of them. The thought of being able to live independently from society (in terms of sustainability and self-sufficiency) is intriguing to me, just because it means that I am relatively protected from external forces which I have little control over.
    - pingswept 17y ago
      What's the difference between a moral imperative and an extremely strong preference, I wonder? For example, I like peanut butter a lot, and I think torture is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. The first is a preference; the second is a moral imperative. If asked to defend either proposition, I can say only, "I am convinced that this is true." There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism. One difference I notice is that preferences extend just to myself, while moral claims extend beyond me, i.e. I think it's fine if you don't like peanut butter, but what I think is moral I think applies to everyone (modulo my uncertainty about it). Perhaps that gets at what irks some people about the article-- the builder's implying not just that his way is good, but that your way is bad. (In this case, he makes his case in a pleasant enough tone, but I think it's fair to say that he condemns the modern system of housing and land management.)
      - netsp 17y ago
        That's an interesting line of thought. I also share the opinion that preference, aesthetic or otherwise, is intimately related to ethics. "There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism." That's quite an assertion. It borders on Nihilism. You imply that there is no different between preference & what we see as morals. I don't think you're free and clear though. There are all sorts of ways to draw a distinction between the two. From a utilitarian perspective, you could argue that torturing causes pain & is therefore bad. From a rights/liberty perspective, you could argue that it violates some ones rights or liberties. Form the Kantian/Deontological or many other perspectives, you'd see that you would not want torture to be widespread or that it is inherently wrong. Basically, almost to the extent that morality can be said to exist, torture can be said to be wrong. Peanut butter eating can be said to be right. Hobbit houses are quite clearly in the peanut butter category. In a more practical sense, you just answer the question about whether you should coerce or encourage others to eat peanut butter, stop torturing or build hobbit houses for any reason other then that they will enjoy it.
ntoshev 17y ago
William Gibson gives an interesting perspective on this sort of world view in the documentary "No Maps For These Territories": "I think what I'm most aware of is the extent to which people are unaware of the extent to which they've been penetrated and co-opted by their technology. I mean, I take it for granted that I've been, but I think a lot of people today have this sort of Rousseau-esque idea that it's possible for humans to return to the natural state. But in fact I think that it's not, and if it were, they really wouldn't like it. I mean, I'm immune to a number of really terrible diseases, because I was inoculated against them as a child - that's technology. I'm a male human in my 50's and I still have most of my teeth - that's technology. I'm myopic, to the point of near blindness, and yet I can see - that's technology. It's too close to us to be very aware of it, if we could be stripped of it - which we can't be, because it's actually altered our physical being, we'd be pretty unhappy; and we'd start dying big time!"
alan-crowe 17y ago
The Society for Barefoot Living http://www.barefooters.org http://www.barefooters.org achieves the purity of mission that you cry out for.

by netsp 17y ago

enneff 17y ago

You ask an odd question, paraphrased: "Why can't he be some of the things he is, while not being others?" Part of the reason he's done it is because he has these views. You can't ask him to separate them out. And I can understand it, because I share some of his views. If anything, it's admirable that he's walking the walk as well as talking the talk. Some people do enjoy living 'off the grid' (so to speak) and aren't as radical as this guy. They just less likely to set up web sites about what they've done, as they've no motivation to promote their message (if they even have one).

netsp 17y ago
I'd prefer to stay away of calling him radical. Both building & living in that house seems pleasant to me and to many of the commentators here. As I suppose is implied above, I challenge the notion that in this case (and many others), ideas about ecologically sustainability really do logically imply that people should build their own houses, live off the grid, eat locally grown foods, make their own yoghurt etc. I think That the case is mixed (at best). I think that this is all besides the point anyway. I think that many people enjoy building their own houses, live off the grid, eat locally grown foods & make their own yoghurt. However, they seem to want these things to be moral imperatives, not just preferences. Superficially, it's similar to people that like to photograph unusual doors or meet descendants of historical characters. It gives them a framework to travel & meet people. I have no issues with that. But this case is problematic because it's political. it implies there are benefits to this far beyond the personal enjoyment of the individual. I think the house is beautiful. I appreciate that he is an ethical consumer with regards to his chosen building materials. But I reject the case that manufactured housing is bad.
- dkokelley 17y ago
  However, they seem to want these things to be moral imperatives, not just preferences. I think that sentence summarizes well the point you want to make. I'm sure there are people who do have a preference to live this way without any eco-political agendas. I think I might be one of them. The thought of being able to live independently from society (in terms of sustainability and self-sufficiency) is intriguing to me, just because it means that I am relatively protected from external forces which I have little control over.
  - pingswept 17y ago
    What's the difference between a moral imperative and an extremely strong preference, I wonder? For example, I like peanut butter a lot, and I think torture is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. The first is a preference; the second is a moral imperative. If asked to defend either proposition, I can say only, "I am convinced that this is true." There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism. One difference I notice is that preferences extend just to myself, while moral claims extend beyond me, i.e. I think it's fine if you don't like peanut butter, but what I think is moral I think applies to everyone (modulo my uncertainty about it). Perhaps that gets at what irks some people about the article-- the builder's implying not just that his way is good, but that your way is bad. (In this case, he makes his case in a pleasant enough tone, but I think it's fair to say that he condemns the modern system of housing and land management.)
    - netsp 17y ago
      That's an interesting line of thought. I also share the opinion that preference, aesthetic or otherwise, is intimately related to ethics. "There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism." That's quite an assertion. It borders on Nihilism. You imply that there is no different between preference & what we see as morals. I don't think you're free and clear though. There are all sorts of ways to draw a distinction between the two. From a utilitarian perspective, you could argue that torturing causes pain & is therefore bad. From a rights/liberty perspective, you could argue that it violates some ones rights or liberties. Form the Kantian/Deontological or many other perspectives, you'd see that you would not want torture to be widespread or that it is inherently wrong. Basically, almost to the extent that morality can be said to exist, torture can be said to be wrong. Peanut butter eating can be said to be right. Hobbit houses are quite clearly in the peanut butter category. In a more practical sense, you just answer the question about whether you should coerce or encourage others to eat peanut butter, stop torturing or build hobbit houses for any reason other then that they will enjoy it.

ntoshev 17y ago

William Gibson gives an interesting perspective on this sort of world view in the documentary "No Maps For These Territories": "I think what I'm most aware of is the extent to which people are unaware of the extent to which they've been penetrated and co-opted by their technology. I mean, I take it for granted that I've been, but I think a lot of people today have this sort of Rousseau-esque idea that it's possible for humans to return to the natural state. But in fact I think that it's not, and if it were, they really wouldn't like it. I mean, I'm immune to a number of really terrible diseases, because I was inoculated against them as a child - that's technology. I'm a male human in my 50's and I still have most of my teeth - that's technology. I'm myopic, to the point of near blindness, and yet I can see - that's technology. It's too close to us to be very aware of it, if we could be stripped of it - which we can't be, because it's actually altered our physical being, we'd be pretty unhappy; and we'd start dying big time!"

alan-crowe 17y ago

The Society for Barefoot Living http://www.barefooters.org http://www.barefooters.org achieves the purity of mission that you cry out for.