Hacker News Reader

Comment by kiliantics | Hacker News Reader

You may not be rich, but you are not poor. How can these projects be about civic participation if they're not inclusive to the kinds of people that can't afford to take time off work and trek across the country to go camping in the desert?

There are lots of ways people try to address the problems of our "highly commodified, transactional society" within their own communities, where everyone is capable of participating. For some reason, however, many of the people I know that go to Burning Man, and many of the kinds of people that typically do go, are never involved in those kinds of local organising initiatives...

It would be nice if these ideals about art were more commonly expressed and engaged with in the areas where they are really sorely needed, rather than in a remote place that people need to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get to and be in.

View on HN

Hopefully not treading on too many toes, but I would hazard, being part of an in-group rather than idealogies that are being used to as a reason to come together, are closer to what drives Burning man's economy of sharing, than actual altruism.

Humans are more inclined to be altruistic to their in-group, and to see their in-group as 'everyone'. Often without noticing. Burning man is, to some people, a very important ingroup, because they feel that the larger social environment has not provided them with that psychological support they need - people they identify with and share their values. Important enough to traipse from all over the world to the middle of nowhere to be a part of it.

This may or may not be actually the case - perhaps the perception of it is in part what makes the reality. It is, IMHO, what caused it's initial resonance and success; it was real at one point, for many participants.

So, it's not realistic to expect these personal needs for community to be transferable to just anywhere, unless that other community is also able to meet those needs.

I'm positing that people don't go to burning man inherently to do good - they do it for themselves, and that includes the giving and sharing, in the support of a community they identify with.

What you just described is the actual altruism.

I'm positing that people don't go to burning man inherently to do good - they do it for themselves, and that includes the giving and sharing, in the support of a community they identify with.

Let's leave out a few words to get something more universal:

"People don't inherently do good - they do things for themselves, and that includes giving and sharing in the support of a community they identify with."

I'm vegan. What community do I identify? How am I fostering it? How does saving a being, that I'll never meet, return to me in the tangible manner of a community?

Whatever community you might or might not belong to, as of 2018, it would probably consist of human beings.

No one is claiming that BM is a replacement for local civic involvement! But I also don’t like the moral tone of claims about what other people -should- be doing with their time. Sure, some people just go out there to party - who cares? I recall H. L. Mencken: “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” As much as we’d like to make it more accessible, it -is- a weird art event in the remote desert, logistically limited to a small number of people. Look, the first step to civic engagement is actually thinking it’s something worth caring about. I grew up in an impoverished, hollowed-out place - I know it might sound ridiculous, but as an American in my generation the very idea of ‘society’ can be a hard concept to pick up as we don’t always get the chance to experience it growing up. Even a toy example can be illuminating to idiots like I was...

Many people talk about burning man as if it is an experiment for a new kind of alternative society and your comment was reminiscent of that kind of talk - "we’ve become divorced from the act of creation and civic participation... it’s worth trying to address that". This rhetoric always sounds to me like burners believe they have found the cure and if only everyone would see the world as they do we would live in harmony.

I've never been to a burn but I do agree with these diagnoses about the shortcomings of our society. I also make efforts in my community to confront these problems and it is a whole lot harder to change things than just going out and partying in the desert. I have no problem with people going out and partying but I don't think people should be claiming that it is much more than just that - a party.

It is different than a party because of how participant driven it is combined with the scale. Sure you can see your friend's band at a house party, but most parties the size of Burning Man are entirely controlled by a single large entity, like Budweiser. When people talk about the fall of Burning Man they are really lamenting a trend to more centralized control and less participant interaction.

It's not the partying that people object to. It's partying whilst exclaiming "We're saving the world!"

Yes, the pretentiousness can be over-the top. They literally see themselves as a global movement. I have the same problem with TED. It's just a place for privileged people to rub elbows and pretend they're doing something for the betterment of society.

You're placing your own values on the event. People get mad because they don't think its "green enough" too. Or "vegan enough" or whatever.

There are lots of things people can do in their communities. You don't have to do any of them to burn the man.

I think Burning Man participants should use their skills to build public showers for the homeless encampments along the sidewalks of San Francisco.

On your first point, inclusiveness and diversity is great; the issue isn't that rich people are joining in the fun, the problem is when values get warped. What I found most striking was the paid servants and private cities described.

We can argue about what does and doesn't encompass the values of something like Burning Man, but I think that's clearly outside the spirit of the festival; and it's a festival where spirit and values are deemed important. If they wanted to get dirty, and rough it out, I don't think anyone would have a problem. It's the idea of fiefdoms forming with lords and servants, and the event turning into an expensive theme park for the rich that's so offensive.

For what it's worth I managed to attend Burning Man for $500 all inclusive one year while I was between jobs on a low income ticket, admittedly, though, using camping gear I already owned. I also attended multiple years while working at a slightly-above wage retail job, but I did have to make Burning Man a financial priority for myself those years.

Any able-body can get to this

>>can't afford to take time off work and trek across the country to go camping in the desert

if they work hard enough.

No, not really. Maybe the readers of HN can, though. Which I suppose is part of user killantics' point.

I'm sorry, but this is such a toxic mentality. Yes any able-body person that wants to can work and take a week off if they wanted to. Most don't, and many can't because of responsibilities such as having kids.

Not sure what country you live in, but the US has no legally mandated vacation time. 23% of private sector workers get 0 days.

https://www.epi.org/publication/millions-of-working-people-d...

I was kind of shocked at that number, people getting 0 days of vacation?

But no, the figure in your reference is paid vacation. These people ostensibly take non-paid days off.

I expect most Burning Man attendees are not getting paid to attend, and that's a strange bar to set.

I suspect most people with no paid vacation are working low wage jobs, and a) can't afford to forgo several hundred dollars of lost wages, b) can't afford to travel anywhere if they could take time off, and c) might be fired and immediately replaced if they asked for a week off without a "good" reason.

Some people don't earn enough per hour to put significant money aside to take that kind of time off

A lot of "able bodied" people in many countries simply cannot afford to take time off to go to some party in the desert. They don't have the money, they have problems, their jobs can easily be lost, they have families (maybe spouses or kids who do NOT want to go to the desert).

Plenty of real-world reasons to be able-bodied and NOT being able to attend some desert party on a whim.

Unfortunately the culture of Burning Man requires the excess resulting from thousands of people with the resources to over-prepare. Without this dynamic it's doubtful the event could exist with many of its core principals. There are people in our society that are stretched too thin to visit art museums, but this doesn't mean that art museums don't provide an immense benefit to the community as a whole.

I'm not arguing against the existence of Burning Man -- it does seem silly to me, but like many things I consider silly, it has the right to exist and other people can enjoy them.

I'm arguing against the idea that "any able-bodied person" can attend Burning Man, or events like it. Lots of healthy people cannot afford to attend events like that, for multiple reasons.

I think your argument misses the point because any able bodied person can attend Burning Man if they make doing so a priority in their life. No one is arguing that people who don't care too much about attending don't manage to go, and frankly, even with a bunch of disposable income if your trip to Burning Man was "easy" you're doing it wrong.

I don't know how I can put it more simply: it's definitely not true that any able bodied person can attend Burning Man.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I've been a dozen times and I've met both able bodied and disabled people there from literally every walk of life, including self-described homeless, octogenarians on fixed incomes, people suffocating under medical bills for their cancer treatments, and folks from a dizzying array of far away countries.

Really? And yet, many people in low wage jobs don't get vacation. And even if they get vacation, if they take it when it's inconvenient to management, they get fired. And even if it's not inconvenient, a week off in the desert costs either money (the gear isn't free), or health(without gear, that playa dust is pretty bad for you)

What's toxic is unreflecting statements that proclaim general truths for everybody.

With the exception of my first burn I've never worn goggles or a dust mask on the playa and I can assure you the dust has not had any severe negative effects on my health. You can pull off a successful burn solo with an $80 tent, some pieces of rebar, a $30 sleeping bag, a pocket flashlight, 20 cans of chef boyardee, and 12 gallons of drinking water. I know because I have done so. If you find a camp to go with the requirements can get even lower. Honestly the hardest part for me was hitching a ride there ($40 gas share) and scheduling the time off work (I quit when I couldn't get it and got another bullshit job when I came back which turned out to be a stepping stone to a much better default life).

You are looking at long-term risks, not "come home feeling sick". Playa dust is >40% silica dust, which has been linked to silicosis and cancer. It's also corrosive. I mean, you do you, and all that, but I wouldn't advise ditching the mask.

But let's ignore that, because the main point was that it's not that easily affordable if you just "work hard enough" - and in your cost estimation, you're conveniently forgetting the ticket fee of $425.

And not everybody can afford to quit their job in hopes they have another one when they come back. I'm glad it's worked out for you, but let's stop pretending it's this giant egalitarian thing available to all.

> Yes any able-body person that wants to can work and take a week off if they wanted to. Most don't

it's really alarming that you believe this

You can bring your kids

And they're free under 12...

Any person? You sure?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com