“But living single or raising a huge family (and everything else in between) -- one always has some degree of control. On the expense side, we can control our desires and living/spending habits. On the income side, we can control to a significant degree our own continued education, training and career.”

Having thought about this a lot more, I am struck by the people I have encountered in life and on this forum (amongst other forums). One woman in particular really got me thinking a few years ago. She is from Zimbabwe originally, and one Monday morning she asked me what I got up to the previous weekend. I told her I went “tramping” (backpacking) and she replied with amazement that so many Kiwis like to tramp…she said that in Zimbabwe, the only time you walked anywhere was if you were thirsty, hungry, or someone held a gun to your head. I realised then how lucky and in many ways well off even the poorest of us in the western world are. To have the spare time, energy and resources to even contemplate walking for fun set my mind frame more firmly that simply living really isn’t enough.. We all need a minimum of health, food, clean water and protection from excess heat and cold to simply live. I also think of clerics such of varying religions who are absolutely content with this minimum of simply living. I think of the Bhutanese who are allegedly the *happiest* people, yet are very poor by western standards. I also think of all the wealthy people who are NOT at all happy or content with their lot, for whatever reason.

Recreational expenditure is such a luxury, that I became even more content with my *simple* yet not simply living lifestyle choices. I think that is all we should aim for…to be content whatever way works for us. I chose contentment because I am not lacking in necessities and have plenty of time and money for leisure.

My Zimbabwean friend (again) made me realise that for much of the world, not only is hiking not even on the horizon, but so many do not have control of their income, training, career, and even reproduction. The fact that we are even posting on this forum means we probably have that kind of control so lacking in many places. For some to say that everyone should aim for, and is capable of finding their dream career or financial excess to be happy or live a simple life just doesn’t ring true to me

Great thread. And lots of wisdom and good practical advice.

Lynn, as usual I agree with things you write. Just one observation: I think your Zimbabwean friend in part comes from a culture where people just don't think about going for long walks. Kiwis do. Obviously she had enough time for leisure if she was online talking in forums. Zimbabweans dance a lot. How many Kiwis dance?

Edited by butuki on 08/04/2010 19:19:43 MDT.

I think your Zimbabwean friend in part comes from a culture where people just don't think about going for long walks.

Similarly, before retiring I worked with a guy who immigrated from China. He'd biked a lot before coming here but the concept of cycling for recreation was beyond comprehension for him.

Edited by jcolten on 08/04/2010 19:47:59 MDT.

"Obviously she had enough time for leisure if she was online talking in forums. Zimbabweans dance a lot. How many Kiwis dance?"

She was not from an online forum, she managed to escape Zimbabwe and immigrate to NZ. To be fair, she is well educated and a deep thinker (and a very active activist fighting from abroad for Zimbabwean reform). I don't know if she dances (danced a lot). She has moved on from this workplace however, so I will have to track her down and ask her ;)

This has to have been one of my favorite " Chaff" threads. I think most of us that love backpacking, do so because of how simple and basic life gets out on the trail, as many have already stated. We are lucky that we get to enjoy the times when food, shelter and warmth are our main concerns.


ps.. about the big rigs rant, I would not have mentioned it if I did not see it all the time, particularly here in Santa Cruz, on Mission street. Big rig drivers do see people in front of them just as well as car drivers; not talking about blind spots here. I just mind the entitled " I am walking, therefore you better stop for me" attitude. Sometimes it makes better sense ( and less pollution) if we pedestrians just wait a minute and not make everybody come to a stop for us. Key word here " sometimes".

So Ike (or any other reader)...

Has this thread influenced you at all regarding the concept of simple living? And will you be making any changes to your lifestyle as a result?

Just curious -- and answer only if you want to.

"Sometimes it makes better sense ( and less pollution) if we pedestrians just wait a minute and not make everybody come to a stop for us. Key word here " sometimes"."

A huge +1. Solidly grounded in Newtonian physics in its essence; an object in motion tends to remain in motion....
If more pedestrians thought that one through, we'd use a lot less fossil fuel and produce correspondingly less CO2.

My 2 cents.

I put them on a much higher level than Nick does. While Darwin and Marx are infuential and important thinkers, neither is an artist in my opinion: Darwin was a scientist and Marx a social scientist/philosopher, wholly different genres of experience and writing. Emerson and Thoreau were poet/philosophers and basically established the basis of modern American philosophy and poetics.

Darwin merely was first to publish a theory (by only a few weeks) that several other scientists were also working toward publishing--his ideas are important, but if he hadn't published, the ideas would have come out within the same year. Not so without Emerson and Thoreau; they were the center of a new vision of American arts and life.

Marx is more unique, to be sure, but again, not an artist. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are significant artists, but I don't carry them around and neither did Gandhi: Gandhi and I both considered among our most prized posessions copies of their works. I love Tolstoy, Dostoevsky less so, but I am much more influenced by Emerson and Thoreau, as is this entire thread, and I'd argue almost any writer following them in American history and almost any American who lived after their time. Probably almost any human in the world (if they are influenced by any of the artists in question).

Transcendentalism ushered in a reconsideration of the place of man in nature and in society, anticipated and influenced the coming of naturalism and realism, and was important in the development of every modern literary movement that followed: without Emerson and Thoreau, we don't have Walt Whitman in the same way, nor Carl Sandburg, nor the Beat Movement, nor the Civil Rights Movement and other major social changes of that era. While some of these artistic and social changes may have occured somewhat along the same schedule, they would not have been the same without much of their poetic and philosophical basis in Transcendentalism.

Cary,

Americans hold Emerson & Thoreau more highly than the rest of Western civilization. They are important to the American experience. Thus my comment on western civilization in the same sentence as secondary works.

I did mention Darwin and Marx as important written works of the time, not art. They are from the same age, and actually Darwin did influence Thoreau a lot.

The conversation of what is a simple life, and/or the value of a simple life is an important one. Most people base their philosophy on a foundation passed on by those who came before us. Whether or not I think Emerson, Thoreau, or anyone else is right or wrong does not matter. What does matter is that people think and build their own moral, ethical, and philosophical compass based on their own exploration of life. I feel that this exploration requires a scrutiny into the ideas of others. What bothers me is that so many people in America do not explore these questions at all, they just accept some hand-me-down vision of the world, wrought with ignorance and prejudice.

Transcendentalism really had a short life span, and I would not necessarily say in and of itself, it influenced or spawned other movements (I am not passing judgment on Transcendentalism). Yes pieces like the essay on Civil Disobedience did influence the likes of ML King. But even a rational thinking atheist should come to the conclusion that equal rights for all men is the only acceptable way society should operate. And of course the importance of King cannot be minimized. Did King accelerate civil and human rights? Yes, of course. Has prejudice been eliminated in America? No.

I do appreciate your comments.

Thoreau

which is somewhat my point: the basis of our way of perceiving truth and what is important for each individual life originates significantly in the works of E & T

I think Emerson's "Self Reliance" essay is much more foundational than Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" (and I think it affected the thinking of MLK & Gandhi more)

Through their direct influence on Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman and indirectly on later major thinkers like T.S. Eliot, many of the seeds sprouted by Emerson and Thoreau in Transcendentalism passed into modern literary theory and practice throughout the world. Eliot's New Criticism extended some of the ideas raised by especially Emerson in works like "The Poet" and argued with others--many of his ideas on poetics are either agreements or disagreements with the transcendental poetics, in either case, an extension of the influence. Oscar Wilde, D.H. Lawrence, Rudyard Kipling and scores of others, especially the Beats, were influenced by their streams of consciousness, and writers today are still influenced by them, but almost any free verse written today is influenced by them. The entire Green movement has its beginnings in Transcendentalism.

Yes I do sound like Thoreau. I am a champion of individualism. My focus is on the rational self-interest of the individual.

T & E urged people to become thinkers by studying nature, history, etc. However they get confused about the ideas of others. They consider the ideas of others as interpretations of little value, and then turn to the intuition of the soul as the path to truth and a connection to some universal mind, and it starts looking like mysticism.

On self-reliance... I am big on that too! But Emerson's self reliance is rooted in intuition and the universal spirit connecting all men, not necessarily reason.

Be careful tying too much of today's movements to Thoreau. He was anti-government. "That Government is best which governs least." or "Government is at best which governs not at all." In America, many expect the government to protect the environment, provide health care, job security, etc. Thoreau would tell us that anarchy is better.

And back to the OP, when I was discussing a simple life versus creating wealth, it was all about creating your own world of self-reliance, which led to my comment about Thoreau's experiment at Walden that required his reliance on the generosity of others.

We can pick valuable bits and pieces from both T & E, but their Transcendentalism was really confined to the area around Concord, it was short lived, and was basically done for when Emerson died.

:)

We can pick valuable bits and pieces from both T & E, but their Transcendentalism was really confined to the area around Concord, it was short lived, and was basically done for when Emerson died

I wouldn't say done for. Are we not discussing their ideas right now here in this very thread? Obviously their ideas are still powerful and influential. They come up constantly in discussions about simplicity and simple living, not just in the States, but around the world, including here in Japan. I can't say that for many other writers and philosophers in history.

American Transcendentalism is a religion, and part of the aftermath of the Great Awaking of the early 18th century. During the late 18th and 19th century, we see hundreds of sects and utopian societies pop up in the northeast all the way down to Pennsylvania.

Transcendentalism was manifested in the Brook Farm experiment. Along with Brook Farm, other notable utopian societies included the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and the Rappites. All are gone, although the Oneida Silver Company that grew out of that community still exists. America was a hot bed of new religions, cults and sects in the 1800's.

Sects from the era still in existence today are the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Notable influences on Emerson were Plato (The Over-Soul) and Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Emerson’s Transcendentalism in many ways was dissimilar to western religions, and similar to Hinduism (Emerson’s Over-Soul).

The major influences from T&E on today’s world are the key concepts of Individualism and Self-Reliance (not to be confused with self-sufficient). A compelling argument can be made that 20th century pragmatic political philosophers and economists, who do not embrace Thoreau’s anti-materialism at all, also embrace these key concepts. Today’s champions of capitalism, the Libertarians and Objectivists, have similar views of Individualism and Self-Reliance.

I'd like to pose a question about people's ideas of what it means to live simply: why is it always assumed that living simply and self-reliance mean that an individual ought to live alone and without help? Doesn't cooperation and community make life simpler and more economical? What is wrong with people helping each other out? And what about living in cooperation with little or no money involved?

> I'd like to pose a question about people's ideas of what it means to live simply: why is it always assumed that living simply and self-reliance mean that an individual ought to live alone and without help? Doesn't cooperation and community make life simpler and more economical? What is wrong with people helping each other out? And what about living in cooperation with little or no money involved?

------------------------------------------------

Oh, I don’t think it is necessarily meant that a simple life and self-reliance equate to living alone. IMO, people need to live together and benefit from society. And I believe that cooperation and community do make life simpler and more economical.

Regarding “helping each other out,” is where I find difficulty. If it is expected to help each other out, then those who cannot or are not willing to be self-reliant, often become a burden on the society. And those who are able to be self-reliant are expected to take care of the first group; that would boil down to “to each according to their need, and from each according to their ability.” I think there is a name for this, and to me it is evil.

Now if someone has great ability, but lacks the capital or resources to succeed, I may be willing to invest in that person’s endeavor. My investment would expect a return on that investment. That is how companies should work. They sell stock in the company, and the stockowners expect dividends from the profits that are generated.

“Living in cooperation with little or no money.” Money is just a tool to make it easy to trade goods or services. Lets say that you produce a piece or artwork that I would like to own. And I produce pencils. Lets say the value of your artwork is 2 million of my pencils, and you do not need any pencils at all, then we cannot trade directly. As a matter of fact, most people will never need more than 5 pencils at one time, and the value of 5 of my pencils is less than any single item the community has to offer in terms of goods and services, then I cannot make a living at all. But if I can sell each pencil for 5 cents, and everyone has money to purchase my pencils, then I can buy your artwork for $100,000 after I sell 2 million pencils. Now this were Thoreau does play an important part… Less Government. Our example government can print money, but it needs to be back by something… gold is often used (I really do not want to get into that debate). We cannot print more money than we can back it up with. Now going back to “helping each other out” – if I am expected to help others who cannot or will take care of themselves, I am going to have to sell 3 million pencils which will give me $150,000. $100,000 for your artwork; and $50,000 that the government has stolen from me to redistribute for the common good. They have taken it from me by force without my consent. Now if I WANT to give away $50,000 and choose to do so, that is fine.

If a person in our group wants to live simply and generate only enough money to meet their most basic needs that is fine. That person may only have to work 16 hours a week and spend the rest of their time pursuing other interests. If another person wants to amass millions of dollars and build a skyscraper and live in the penthouse, that is fine too. It woks if neither person expects or demands anything from the other. Of course we would want both of them to be able to trade goods and services with each other, if they choose to do so. Neither would benefit from the other unless they both agree to engage in some sort of commerce. And they could trade goods and services without direct contact with each other, using the tool called money.

It all depends on what you teach and at what level. I have an acquaintance that just started teaching Accounting a year ago at Arizona State University and her starting salary right out of getting her PhD was $164,000 for 9 months work. Throw in another $35,000 for summer research and teaching and thats almost $200k.(but who wants to work over the summer?)

The average 9 month salary for the Accounting professors (not including administrators)was $196,240 in 2008 (All data on state employees is available publicly).

I teach physics at a community college. I don't make nearly as much as the person Frank mentioned, but since my wife and I both work, we're really pretty affluent by any reasonable standard. It's a great job if you like backpacking, since you can choose to take summers off.

For K-12, the pay generally sucks at first, but then gets pretty comfortable (at least in some states) as you get more seniority.

Most teachers have defined-benefit pensions, which is an incredible luxury these days. Tenure has both its good side and its bad side for society, but it's great for the teacher.

When you get into the more high-powered academic jobs, they become pretty much the opposite of the kind of Thoreauvian/hippie lifestyle that has been discussed in this thread. It's very high pressure and all-consuming. A lot of these people either put off having a family until they're 40, or else they depend completely on a spouse who doesn't work.

Edited by bcrowell on 08/06/2010 15:48:06 MDT.

My dream job, teaching Physics (or math) at a community college, I am jealous Ben!

i started college as an Astro-Physics major at the university of Arizona. Alas, I was sucked into the world of business.

Live within your means.
Live consciously and deliberately.
Do not allow yourself to be owned by your possessions.

On the material side, you can extrapolate the same principles used in UL hiking:

Own only what you will actually use

Make choices that will provide maximum performance for the impact.

Know and understand why you own something, its real practical purpose, and your emotional attachment to it.

If you want to try an interesting exercise, imagine that you have *nothing* and you can choose anything you want, but it must fit in a one meter cube-- all your personal items, not a cube full of money. You will find what has priority in your life and what your comfort level is.

to the OP or anyone looking to read a book:
The Omnivores Dilemma, Pollan
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, Kingslover
And maybe books by Helen and Scott Nearing, like Living the Good Life

//edit: I give up with the links, they're not working well

Edited by zackcentury on 08/08/2010 17:11:40 MDT.