5 ms·

Wood is renewable, burning it for heating houses in countryside full of forests is perfectly sustainable. Not caring about social status is only smart, as long

Wood is renewable, burning it for heating houses in countryside full of forests is perfectly sustainable. Not caring about social status is only smart, as long as your choices don't hurt others. It should be up to individual to decide what makes them happy within these limits. Instead of hippies I would be worried of consumerist sheep who think buying products/services makes them happy, and who destroy the planet in the process. Amazon, shopping malls full of people spending money just for fun, those are the real evil of our world. I would much rather live in a hut without electricity than be your average city-dwelling consumerist.

jay_kyburz 3y ago
The problem with wood is that if we all burnt it, there would be nowhere near enough, and our cities would be full of smoke and heavily polluted. Every household would need a lot land just to support tree regrowth. You have to be planting a lot of trees every year and letting them grow for a long time too. I don't agree with simple-thoughts on hippies, but I understand why we don't all burn wood for energy.
- strken 3y ago
  You get 80 tons of wood from an acre of land after 20 years of growth, or 4 tons a year. A household probably uses about 2 to 4 tons a year, less if they're in a warmer climate. That's half an acre to an acre per house. There are potential problems here: water table and soil depletion, pollution in built-up areas including acid rain, overuse of wood in crowded areas destroying habitats for animals, and probably more. Nevertheless, all these problems only apply in certain circumstances, and rural use of firewood for heating is likely not as big a problem as you think it is. Obviously in the city things are different, but neither the author nor letrowekwel were talking about cities.
- cudgy 3y ago
  > The problem with wood is that if we all burnt it, there would be nowhere near enough, and our cities would be full of smoke and heavily polluted. Isn’t this true of almost every resource, especially in modern societies? Think automobiles, potable water, air conditioners, heaters, food packaging, solvents, cleaners, pets, consumer waste, buildable land, lumber, drywall, pesticides, etc.
pizza234 3y ago
> Not caring about social status is only smart, as long as your choices don't hurt others This is a very interesting topic, which I find counterintuitive. In my view, they actually care about status a lot: they seek their own place at the exact opposite place on the spectrum, as a matter of principle. The author indeed stresses multiple times that both he and his partner are rebels. I get the very strong impression that when one is in that position, they can get a lot of return of investment with little effort, but they're intentionally choosing not to (for example, they talk about refusing stable jobs, but on the other hand, taking a variety of odd jobs). There are more balanced positions where with more money, parents can give considerably more freedom of choice and experience at least to their children, without falling into a consumeristic lifestyle.
- cudgy 3y ago
  > (for example, they talk about refusing stable jobs, but on the other hand, taking a variety of odd jobs) Perhaps they prefer different, diverse jobs rather than a single job doing the same thing day after day. Their admitted aversion to authority would also result in more odd jobs due to likely conflict with bosses. > There are more balanced positions where with more money, parents can give considerably more freedom of choice and experience at least to their children, without falling into a consumeristic lifestyle. True, but avoiding consumerism is rarely the case in most modern capitalist societies. There are so many forces working against this ideal like peer pressure, advertising, government regulations, community codes, etc. The author consciously chose to live in a remote area where fewer of these forces are at play. Overall I find the author’s actions to be reasonable and well thought out for their situation. My only quibble might be accepting the money from the government for his children given that there are possibly other families that need it more; the author seems intelligent, healthy, capable, and has some savings. But who am I to judge?

jay_kyburz 3y ago

The problem with wood is that if we all burnt it, there would be nowhere near enough, and our cities would be full of smoke and heavily polluted. Every household would need a lot land just to support tree regrowth. You have to be planting a lot of trees every year and letting them grow for a long time too. I don't agree with simple-thoughts on hippies, but I understand why we don't all burn wood for energy.

strken 3y ago
You get 80 tons of wood from an acre of land after 20 years of growth, or 4 tons a year. A household probably uses about 2 to 4 tons a year, less if they're in a warmer climate. That's half an acre to an acre per house. There are potential problems here: water table and soil depletion, pollution in built-up areas including acid rain, overuse of wood in crowded areas destroying habitats for animals, and probably more. Nevertheless, all these problems only apply in certain circumstances, and rural use of firewood for heating is likely not as big a problem as you think it is. Obviously in the city things are different, but neither the author nor letrowekwel were talking about cities.
cudgy 3y ago
> The problem with wood is that if we all burnt it, there would be nowhere near enough, and our cities would be full of smoke and heavily polluted. Isn’t this true of almost every resource, especially in modern societies? Think automobiles, potable water, air conditioners, heaters, food packaging, solvents, cleaners, pets, consumer waste, buildable land, lumber, drywall, pesticides, etc.

pizza234 3y ago

> Not caring about social status is only smart, as long as your choices don't hurt others This is a very interesting topic, which I find counterintuitive. In my view, they actually care about status a lot: they seek their own place at the exact opposite place on the spectrum, as a matter of principle. The author indeed stresses multiple times that both he and his partner are rebels. I get the very strong impression that when one is in that position, they can get a lot of return of investment with little effort, but they're intentionally choosing not to (for example, they talk about refusing stable jobs, but on the other hand, taking a variety of odd jobs). There are more balanced positions where with more money, parents can give considerably more freedom of choice and experience at least to their children, without falling into a consumeristic lifestyle.

cudgy 3y ago
> (for example, they talk about refusing stable jobs, but on the other hand, taking a variety of odd jobs) Perhaps they prefer different, diverse jobs rather than a single job doing the same thing day after day. Their admitted aversion to authority would also result in more odd jobs due to likely conflict with bosses. > There are more balanced positions where with more money, parents can give considerably more freedom of choice and experience at least to their children, without falling into a consumeristic lifestyle. True, but avoiding consumerism is rarely the case in most modern capitalist societies. There are so many forces working against this ideal like peer pressure, advertising, government regulations, community codes, etc. The author consciously chose to live in a remote area where fewer of these forces are at play. Overall I find the author’s actions to be reasonable and well thought out for their situation. My only quibble might be accepting the money from the government for his children given that there are possibly other families that need it more; the author seems intelligent, healthy, capable, and has some savings. But who am I to judge?