Hacker News Reader

Comment by driverdan | Hacker News Reader

I did this for a bit. The approach is very useful to learn. Traveling light is so, so much better. I never check bags unless there's a very good reason. It does have some downsides.

You're constantly making and throwing away relationships. I found this the hardest part.

Your lifestyle is subsidized by society. You depend on other people and services to make it work. You either have to eat out all the time or make many small trips to grocery stores and rent places with furnished kitchens. There is no self reliance, no preparation for things to go wrong besides saving money and hoping you can buy your way out.

There are opportunity costs. If OP had bought real estate in 2015 they would be better off financially. It's one of the reasons I stopped living in a bus and bought a house. Had I bought the last two times I "moved" in 2011 or 2016 I'd have almost enough money to retire and live OP's lifestyle permanently.

View on HN

> You're constantly making and throwing away relationships.

Yeah, this lifestyle basically only works as a single young adult. Once you have a significant other, it's very, very hard. Once you have a kid, it's impossible.

Paul Erdős basically lived most of the second half of his (extremely productive) adult life like this (although he lived out of a suitcase rather than a backpack so he had slightly more room). Although granted he never married and had no children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s

Erdos is awesome but he's so singular that I think his exception makes the rule.

Relatively few people's economic output can compare with them producing new people. If your last name is not Feynman or Curie your most valuable contribution to the society is a couple of kids.

Counterpoint - the best single thing you can do for the planet, in terms of minimising your consumption / ecological footprint, is to not spawn.

Probably the single best thing you can do for the planet is become a green energy lobbyist.

Only if the deal includes a private jet.

You mean by getting nuclear plants shut down, which are then replaced by increased gas and coal energy production because those are the only realistic alternatives?

No need to blame it on one’s spawn, one can start now…

Also why is ecological footprint even important itself? Our eco system has no more reason to exist than any of its components, including humans.

While true, it's functionally irrelevant. Humans are animals, animals procreate. Telling people not to do it because reasons is going to be about as effective as telling them not to eat or sleep.

What I would like to see is a norm on numbers of children. Personally, I think that having more than the replacement number - i.e. more than 2 - is straightforwardly unethical given the stress our planet is under. But by the same token, 2 or fewer is fine. And it would be nice if those who choose to have none got a little more respect for it.

But humans can actually make conscious choices beyond their base animal pressures. We use prophylactics even though those go against our animal pressure to procreate. We help strangers even if it won't improve our own situation and without any expectation of future reciprocation. We have to eat and sleep to live, we don't have to have children.

We also have cultural pressures, which can shape individual behavior. We could have a culture where the default is not to have kids, but that you should not have kids unless you are stable and secure enough to have then and are prepared to invest sufficiently in raising them.

Worse, than that, if you preach antinatalism it has any chance of catching up with people of some knowledge and reflection, leaving the Earth to the children of those of less knowledge and reflection.

1) This is simply not true. 2) Why tf should I car about the planet over human happiness?

It is true. And google sociopathy.

the planet is a rock

This will only result in others reproducing more to replace those who are predispositioned to think like you.

Also, have fun not having anyone to take care about you when you grow old. And your retirement won't be worth shit either without a new generation to keep the economy going.

Yeah no thanks, fuck your anti-natalism. You might as well remove your own ecological footprint if you would deny your children's their existence for that reason.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood what a counterpoint is.

I'm not sure about this math. What percent of my kids' economic output am I supposed to take credit for?

And even if it's "all of it", if you can make some big company or semi-common job 0.00001x more efficient then that's a bigger impact than having kids.

Anything you can do, your kids can also do, so leverage.

1. I exist at a particular point in time with particular skills. My kids cannot do the same things.

2. Even if they did do the same thing, getting it done 30 years earlier has a bigger effect.

3. I still don't think it's right for me to take 100% credit for everything my kids do.

Not sure if that’s good faith, but of course your kids’ contribution doesn’t have to be the same one you make. That would be absurd.

If you don’t have kids, their contributions won’t exist.

It's good faith, I wasn't sure how literal you were being so I threw it in.

But importantly my kids might be more capable than me or less capable than me to effect change. Who knows!

> If you don’t have kids, their contributions won’t exist.

My choices alter a million things about the future. If we look at everything I was a critical step in causing then we're going to massively overvalue my contributions.

Also, shouldn't all my contributions be chocked up to my ancestors if that's how we're doing it? Leaving me with no points of my own?

On average, kids make about average a contribution.

pot/kettle/black

Your kids have about the same chance of making the efficiency improvement. If you end your line, this chance is zero.

> Yeah, this lifestyle basically only works as a single young adult. Once you have a significant other, it's very, very hard.

I've been doing it with my significant other for 5ish years now. I would say it's _much_ harder to do it solo and I would've settled down long ago if it wasn't for her.

Get back to us when you have a kid.

> I would've settled down long ago if it wasn't for her.

Maybe it's much harder for her then, since you're the one who wants to settle down but she has to drag you around with only a backpack!

No, we're both happy. I just mean if I was solo, the throwing away relationships part would get exhausting. When you travel with a partner, you at least have one person that's constant through out the whole thing.

She feels the same way.

I agree with the kid point, but YouTube is littered with travel influencer couples that are living this lifestyle.

I would imagine if you had significant other to join you on this lifestyle, it would be significantly easier since your companionship is covered.

youtube isn't real life, it's what the algorithm shows

Of course, my main point was my second sentence and was using YouTube as an example.

I know I'd be much happier travelling with my partner than solo.

These people’s lives are not what they’re showing in the YouTube channel.

One way or another, I think most of us have lifestyles subsidized by society.

OP could also have bought stocks in 2015, and perhaps done even better than buying a house. Since the beginning of that year, the S&P500 has more than tripled, while housing has gone up about 50% (though of course leverage helps). For all we know, OP does hold stocks, which wouldn't cramp his lifestyle at all.

Plus he claims to spend less with this lifestyle, which also helps.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Housing/price-inflation

Interest, leverage, and volatility are far better for a primary dwelling than equities which is why they would have been such a good investment.

And diversification is better with an index fund. Both routes have their benefits and drawbacks. I wouldn't say you're paying an "opportunity cost" either way.

> Your lifestyle is subsidized by society. You depend on other people and services to make it work. You either have to eat out all the time or make many small trips to grocery stores and rent places with furnished kitchens. There is no self reliance, no preparation for things to go wrong besides saving money and hoping you can buy your way out.

Everyone lives in and depends on society. I don't think that means you're being "subsidized"; if anything the footprint of living like this is much smaller than someone who owns a house full of stuff and drives a car every day. (At least if you skip the routine flying part. Trains and boats are great)

You’re subsidised if you’re not contributing back what you take, if you’re not participating positively in a system but are reliant on it.

I don't see how that applies here though. You are paying for all the services you consume. Someone that eats out all the time contributes significantly more economically to the restaurants in the area compared to someone that lives in the area permanently but always cooks at home.

But those services can't exist without other people owning all the equipment and land needed to provide them. Once your quest for minimalism turns into externalizing the things you need to survive (instead of getting rid of things you don't need) then maybe you have lost the plot.

I don't get this line of reasoning. The average person doesn't grow their own food, everyone has already externalized the things they need to survive.

The difference between going to the supermarket and then cooking your food vs going to eat at a restaurant is just relying on the restaurant existing.

The restaurant existing relies on people visiting it, so by visiting it, you are helping the restaurant and they are helping you. I just cannot agree that this lifestyle is "subsidized" by society. Enabled, sure, but modern lifestyle is enabled by society and that's generally a good thing.

> no preparation for things to go wrong besides saving money and hoping you can buy your way out

I always wondered about the cost effectiveness of these alternate living arrangements. Like the probability of having to rely on huge amounts of savings seems high versus having a stable setup. And having a stable setup is already so expensive. I can't imagine eating out for every meal. I can cook food for a week for the price of 1 or 2 premade meals. And then you can't carry much so what are you constantly rebuying things? Idk seems like a lifestyle for the rich / lucky / people who have a great life safety net.

I regularly pack for my wife and two toddlers (1 and 3yo) in a 40L + additional 10L bags. It is very hard, means adults also have to surrender even more items to make room for books, toys and nappies, but it is not impossible. The reasons that made us do this is we wanted to only travel by train (europe based).

It’s a highly freeing exercise that is hard but doable. Only works for vacations (a day to a month) though.

I'm currently doing this right now. Living out of a 38L backpack while coding an app living out of hostels in SEA. I have 3 pairs of shorts, 4 t shirts, 1 pair of vans, 1 pair of nike trail runners, laptop, bose headphones, toiletries, 2 hats, and thats pretty much it.

> You're constantly making and throwing away relationships. I found this the hardest part.

very true. it's harder to keep in contact with freinds who you make deeper connections with. But whats the alternative, to not make them in the first place?

True, I eat out every meal, have a membership at a coworking space, and either go for runs or use public outdoor gyms for exercise.

I've been following up on and off for a bit, seen his posts on reddit, etc.. I'm not sure how he funds his lifestyle; he seams to just walk all day...

Say you own your own house and you fill it with, uhm, all kind of stuff. You still rely on society for electricy, water, sewage, internet, roads, the same stuff you are storing, etc..

So no, his life style is much subsidized by society as someone with his own home. The subsidy is probably relative to your footprint. So maybe less?

> You're constantly making and throwing away relationships. I found this the hardest part.

I've been thinking about it too. I've made a few relationships but as soon as they break (or I break) off the trail, the relationship goes with it.

I don't think this is avoidable. You are seeing way more people than a sedentary life allows. You are probably not going to make these relationships in a small 300K city.

> There are opportunity costs. If OP had bought real estate in 2015 they would be better off financially. It's one of the reasons I stopped living in a bus and bought a house. Had I bought the last two times I "moved" in 2011 or 2016 I'd have almost enough money to retire and live OP's lifestyle permanently.

I bought crypto, so it paid off way better than any real estate market in the world and all that money is liquid and ready to buy you a rental anywhere in the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com