6 ms·

I didn't read the whole thing, so correct this if it's wrong but... He hasn't dropped out at all - he's just found a way to live within the system such that he

I didn't read the whole thing, so correct this if it's wrong but... He hasn't dropped out at all - he's just found a way to live within the system such that he can take from it without giving back. He benefits enormously from the very system he denigrates. If anything that's a statement of how amazing our society is, that it's successful enough that people can live largely off its freebies and its waste products. I'm sure for some peope society is awful and living away from it really is the very best option. But society wasn't foisted on us without our consent. At one point we were ALL living off the land - and we didn't like it. So we built civilization.

gnosis 17y ago
"he's just found a way to live within the system such that he can take from it without giving back" is a very poor summary of a complex article rich with ideas and insight. You should read the whole thing. Also see his page of criticism and response: http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropoutcrit.html http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropoutcrit.html
- nzmsv 17y ago
  His response to the criticism is not very well thought out, but takes an amazingly popular viewpoint. Namely, that life used to be so much better in the "olden days". Just because believing this makes many people feel warm and fuzzy on the inside does not make it true. Here's a list: - All problems in Africa are caused by "development" Oh really? Spread of AIDS because people think having sex with a virgin will cure them, and kids dying of diarrhea too? - Before the 20th century people lived off the land, and all was good Actually, people lived like this in the 20th century too. And many live like that now. In fact, my grandparents did. They and all the kids had to work very, very hard to feed themselves. If this guy thinks farm labour is an easy occupation, it's only because his idea of where food comes from is the dumpster behind a grocery store.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Some people would argue that in the long term, psychologically speaking, hard labor to scrape a mostly independent living in a "direct" fashion (e.g. subsistence farming) feels more intrinsically rewarding than comparatively easy work with no obvious impact in an authoritarian hierarchy (e.g., generic corporate desk job). People in general are usually pretty terrible at making choices that would improve their happiness. So even though almost anyone would pick modern life in the USA if given the choice, it's entirely possible that people in the bad old days actually were more satisfied with their lives on average. Well, except for possibly when they were dying in childbirth, starving in famines, succumbing to infectious diseases, or enduring other temporarily unpleasant states of affairs, anyway. Actually, the idea "being happier working very hard in hopes to make a living, producing something tangible without being subject to arbitrary authority" sounds a lot like the startup mindset as well.
  - joshkris 17y ago
    Those are some great straw-man arguments! Anyone who says that "Before the 20th century people lived off the land, and all was good" is an idiot and guilty of vast oversimplification. More importantly, the author never said anything like that. I've read a lot of what Ran has written, and he advocates MOVING FORWARD and in fact demolishes the silly "future primitive" approach. Going back is a conservative viewpoint, and he is most certainly not conservative. What he constantly returns to is that we are not at the pinnacle of human societal development, and that by leaving behind SOME of the problems of our current society (like wage-slavery) and creating new societal ideas and forms, we can go forward to a better place. Oh yeah, by the way, I don't think Ran has ever written about development in Africa, and he actually loathes hard labor and would be the first to agree that farm labor can really suck! But don't worry, some people may not notice that your comment has nothing to do with the stated purpose of this comment section, namely COMMENTING ON THE ARTICLE AT HAND.
    - nzmsv 17y ago
      I was referring to the Criticism section on the website that was linked to in the previous comment. And yes, the author claims that Africa's problems "are caused by development".
      - joshkris 17y ago
        Technically he said that death and starving in Africa are caused by development, not "all problems", but you're right, I should have read the criticism section more closely; my bad. Although I think his comment is a little more nuanced than you made it seem, and I partially agree with him about the destruction (at times intentional) of nature-based cultures, you are correct in pointing out the silliness of some people in pointing to outside factors as the sole cause of Africa's problems. The disappearance of "development" from Africa would not solve the problems, but I think he hits on something by implying a connection between the removal of self-sufficient lifeways and starvation. Thank you for a civil response.
- ianferrel 17y ago
  I read the whole thing and I think that the grandparent comment is pretty accurate. Consider the methods he suggests for retaining shelter: * Squatting. * Couch-surfing. * Living in his car. * Buying some out-of-the-way land and building a house on it (which, you note, he hasn't actually done). Two of those are blatant parasitism, the third is borderline tragedy of the commons material, and the last one appears to support the institutions he claims makes you an "idiot" for supporting. I'm sure that his friends and family that he's stayed with enjoy being called "idiots" for buying into the whole concept of property and having couches to lend. There's nothing wrong with dumpster diving or couch surfing, but it's pretty arrogant to claim that doing so and rejecting conventional social order is the measure of an enlightened mind, when neither dumpster contents nor couch would exist without that order. His response to criticism appears to be mainly sophistry and further reiteration of the "property is theft" meme.
  - abefortas 17y ago
    I think his message was mostly about how he is more free to use his time as he chooses, which seems like a noble goal to me, although I have my doubts about how well "dropping out" as he has done accomplishes this. Also, calling the statement "property is theft" a meme does not make it untrue.
  - colanderman 17y ago
    He has in fact bought land: http://ranprieur.com/me/land.html http://ranprieur.com/me/land.html
    - simon_ 17y ago
      But not, apparently, built a house.
pradocchia 17y ago
But society wasn't foisted on us without our consent. I don't recall having any say in it. Where's the opt-out clause? At one point it might have been America (if you were European). Supposedly, the colonists had a lot of trouble with their indentured servants going native, thus the early colonial emphasis on freedom and natural rights as a mitigating measure. Later, it might have been the West. But today? How do you opt out now? Where's the release valve?
- jey 17y ago
  There's plenty of uninhabited land. I also don't see how the Europeans who fled to America were escaping society... they formed "normal" civilizations after coming over to the 'New World'.
  - burnsobright1 17y ago
    The uninhabited land is all called for, residing in a country/under a government with its laws, etc.
- msluyter 17y ago
  I think that for an inherently social animal, there is none. The vision of living blissfully alone in a cabin in the wilderness is largely a mirage. Yes, you can do that for a while, until you get a toothache, or an infection and need antibiotics, or... etc...
- divia 17y ago
  Seasteading (http://seasteading.org/ http://seasteading.org/) hopes to be the next release valve.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "Where's the opt-out clause?" You can't opt out of reality. Unless the Matrix was true.

gnosis 17y ago

"he's just found a way to live within the system such that he can take from it without giving back" is a very poor summary of a complex article rich with ideas and insight. You should read the whole thing. Also see his page of criticism and response: http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropoutcrit.html http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropoutcrit.html

nzmsv 17y ago
His response to the criticism is not very well thought out, but takes an amazingly popular viewpoint. Namely, that life used to be so much better in the "olden days". Just because believing this makes many people feel warm and fuzzy on the inside does not make it true. Here's a list: - All problems in Africa are caused by "development" Oh really? Spread of AIDS because people think having sex with a virgin will cure them, and kids dying of diarrhea too? - Before the 20th century people lived off the land, and all was good Actually, people lived like this in the 20th century too. And many live like that now. In fact, my grandparents did. They and all the kids had to work very, very hard to feed themselves. If this guy thinks farm labour is an easy occupation, it's only because his idea of where food comes from is the dumpster behind a grocery store.
- camccann 17y ago
  Some people would argue that in the long term, psychologically speaking, hard labor to scrape a mostly independent living in a "direct" fashion (e.g. subsistence farming) feels more intrinsically rewarding than comparatively easy work with no obvious impact in an authoritarian hierarchy (e.g., generic corporate desk job). People in general are usually pretty terrible at making choices that would improve their happiness. So even though almost anyone would pick modern life in the USA if given the choice, it's entirely possible that people in the bad old days actually were more satisfied with their lives on average. Well, except for possibly when they were dying in childbirth, starving in famines, succumbing to infectious diseases, or enduring other temporarily unpleasant states of affairs, anyway. Actually, the idea "being happier working very hard in hopes to make a living, producing something tangible without being subject to arbitrary authority" sounds a lot like the startup mindset as well.
- joshkris 17y ago
  Those are some great straw-man arguments! Anyone who says that "Before the 20th century people lived off the land, and all was good" is an idiot and guilty of vast oversimplification. More importantly, the author never said anything like that. I've read a lot of what Ran has written, and he advocates MOVING FORWARD and in fact demolishes the silly "future primitive" approach. Going back is a conservative viewpoint, and he is most certainly not conservative. What he constantly returns to is that we are not at the pinnacle of human societal development, and that by leaving behind SOME of the problems of our current society (like wage-slavery) and creating new societal ideas and forms, we can go forward to a better place. Oh yeah, by the way, I don't think Ran has ever written about development in Africa, and he actually loathes hard labor and would be the first to agree that farm labor can really suck! But don't worry, some people may not notice that your comment has nothing to do with the stated purpose of this comment section, namely COMMENTING ON THE ARTICLE AT HAND.
  - nzmsv 17y ago
    I was referring to the Criticism section on the website that was linked to in the previous comment. And yes, the author claims that Africa's problems "are caused by development".
    - joshkris 17y ago
      Technically he said that death and starving in Africa are caused by development, not "all problems", but you're right, I should have read the criticism section more closely; my bad. Although I think his comment is a little more nuanced than you made it seem, and I partially agree with him about the destruction (at times intentional) of nature-based cultures, you are correct in pointing out the silliness of some people in pointing to outside factors as the sole cause of Africa's problems. The disappearance of "development" from Africa would not solve the problems, but I think he hits on something by implying a connection between the removal of self-sufficient lifeways and starvation. Thank you for a civil response.
ianferrel 17y ago
I read the whole thing and I think that the grandparent comment is pretty accurate. Consider the methods he suggests for retaining shelter: * Squatting. * Couch-surfing. * Living in his car. * Buying some out-of-the-way land and building a house on it (which, you note, he hasn't actually done). Two of those are blatant parasitism, the third is borderline tragedy of the commons material, and the last one appears to support the institutions he claims makes you an "idiot" for supporting. I'm sure that his friends and family that he's stayed with enjoy being called "idiots" for buying into the whole concept of property and having couches to lend. There's nothing wrong with dumpster diving or couch surfing, but it's pretty arrogant to claim that doing so and rejecting conventional social order is the measure of an enlightened mind, when neither dumpster contents nor couch would exist without that order. His response to criticism appears to be mainly sophistry and further reiteration of the "property is theft" meme.
- abefortas 17y ago
  I think his message was mostly about how he is more free to use his time as he chooses, which seems like a noble goal to me, although I have my doubts about how well "dropping out" as he has done accomplishes this. Also, calling the statement "property is theft" a meme does not make it untrue.
- colanderman 17y ago
  He has in fact bought land: http://ranprieur.com/me/land.html http://ranprieur.com/me/land.html
  - simon_ 17y ago
    But not, apparently, built a house.

pradocchia 17y ago

But society wasn't foisted on us without our consent. I don't recall having any say in it. Where's the opt-out clause? At one point it might have been America (if you were European). Supposedly, the colonists had a lot of trouble with their indentured servants going native, thus the early colonial emphasis on freedom and natural rights as a mitigating measure. Later, it might have been the West. But today? How do you opt out now? Where's the release valve?

jey 17y ago
There's plenty of uninhabited land. I also don't see how the Europeans who fled to America were escaping society... they formed "normal" civilizations after coming over to the 'New World'.
- burnsobright1 17y ago
  The uninhabited land is all called for, residing in a country/under a government with its laws, etc.
msluyter 17y ago
I think that for an inherently social animal, there is none. The vision of living blissfully alone in a cabin in the wilderness is largely a mirage. Yes, you can do that for a while, until you get a toothache, or an infection and need antibiotics, or... etc...
divia 17y ago
Seasteading (http://seasteading.org/ http://seasteading.org/) hopes to be the next release valve.
Tichy 17y ago
"Where's the opt-out clause?" You can't opt out of reality. Unless the Matrix was true.