Hacker News Reader

Comment by simple-thoughts | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> (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?

Not caring about what you think is a sign of mental illness?

Theres a social status among many subcultures that eschew mainstream social structure. Bikers have their status signals. Hippies have theirs. Theres probably a subculture of people out there who view this man with envy, as having a sort of monk like, unattainable discipline. Thats status, just not the kind you'd go for.

Leeching off the kindness of others is about where I'd agree with you, beyond that, leaving wider society to its fate and going on your own is a perfectly respectable decision.

Caring about social status turns relationships into transactions ("I'll marry her because she can get me this", "I'll make friends with Tom because even though he's a fascist he can introduce me to my future employer").

Believing and working for something that is higher than yourself shouldn't be treated as a foreign mindset, but something everyone should strive towards.

Yes, society may not reward you directly for your efforts, and yes you will be acutely aware of people who are sailing by in life under much less effort by serving solely their own interests, but these people do not breed communities or trust. These people get rich enough to buy into a community of trust that was built by people like you in the first place.

TLDR: Bankers like Art, and spend large sums of money on the work of artists who never did it for the money.

> …and ignore their own environmental impacts (wood burning in this instance).

This is what you’re going with?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com