What we want is a hunter gatherer lifestyle with space age tools (2022)
strangeloopcanon.com
strangeloopcanon.com
If you want "a hunter gatherer lifestyle with space age tools" read "Walkaway", by Cory Doctorow. This is the 3D printer fantasy future, where everything can be made easily with small and easily available high-tech equipment. It sort of works in the story. But in reality, 3D printers aren't that good. Somewhere, you need aluminum smelters, steel mills, and copper mines. Those don't scale down well to desktop size.
What this article is talking about is the classic pastoral dream, along the lines of Thoreau's "Walden". Walden is a bogus hermit life. Thoreau had income from a publisher in New York and well-off friends nearby he could and would visit for dinner. Or perhaps the hippie / Whole Earth Catalog dream. We know that doesn't work all that well.
Arguably, we've achieved pastoral life at scale. It's called suburbia. All the pastoral elements are there, in miniature. For a lot of people, that's good enough. If you scale up your own space beyond that, the maintenance gets out of hand. I have a friend who has ten acres and horses, and she's always painting or hauling hay or dealing with some water or power problem. If you farm, it's even harder.
How does the author propose that this work?
An interesting extension on this is that the pencil manufacture which made his family wealthy is now workable on a small scale (allowing for the input of materials):
As miserable as cities can get, there's a reason why people sang "How can you keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?" And as oppressive as today's rat race can be, it's paradise compared to even the cities of the past. You mean I only have to work for eight hours a day, five days a week? In an office where there's always adequate light and the air is constantly freshened and temperature controlled? And the company, by law, has to take reasonable measures to protect my safety and compensate me in case I do get hurt doing my job? Sign me the fuck up!
The first thing I thought of when I read the headline was "so, TFA wants us to become the Yautja?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_(fictional_species)
(btw, RIP to the OG Yautja voice... Peter Cullen)
Pre-industrial life was dominated by labor, struggle and death. There was virtually no social, intellectual or economic mobility. It sucked!
> The origin point for nearly all of those “you work harder than a medieval peasant” memes and articles is Juliet Schor’s The Overworked American (1993). The argument has been debunked quite a few times, so I won’t belabor the point here. Schor bases her estimates of medieval working hours on a 1935 article by Nora Kenyon,1 and an unpublished article by Gregory Clark,2 and in both cases ignores the authors’ careful efforts to distinguish between total days worked and instead just cherry-picks the lowest number, even as the authors caution that those numbers likely don’t represent someone’s total employment. Kenyon notes a set of day-laborers working 120 days per year which makes it into Schor’s work, but Kenyon’s final suggestion that the normal annual working year was 308 days does not, for instance. I can’t get at an unpublished article, but Clark has continued to write on the topic and in his 2018 “Growth or stagnation?” presents a detailed argument for a 250-300-day work-year with no sense that this is a revision of his previous positions, leading me to suspect similar cherry-picking as with Kenyon.
https://acoup.blog/2025/09/05/collections-life-work-death-an...
You'd think that people would realize by now that material wealth (we've long since surpassed basic needs) does not bring happiness. IMO, past a certain point, happiness is more a function of society, family, status, and perhaps even purpose. Personally, I don't think the top three layers of Maslow's Hierarchy are on top of each other, but an interdependent mix. Even so, material wealth certainly makes life more comfy :-)
This has been proven false for most people - money does literally buy happiness for the majority of people: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2016976118
There is a minority of people where higher amounts of money does not buy more happiness, usually in connection with emotional pain or struggle: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120
Why? We already have plenty of materials that can, are close, or have potential pathways for functional substitutes depending on the application? We are already pretty reliably able to print metal with machines no bigger than a fridge.
What happens when a curable resin or impregnated plastic can sufficiently replace steel/aluminum/copper for functions? Why would a steel foundry be needed for the desktop then? There are more theoretical materials that haven’t been discovered than there are atoms in the universe or something crazy like that, so it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility or even likelihood. Especially if AI helps accelerate that discovery, as it seems to be doing already according to a recent Faraday talk in a Royal Institution video — "How AI is Reinventing the Battery".
It also used to be that you needed a large machine to make a plastic part…now I print some in 20 minutes with something that sits on my desk. If one thing is true, it’s that materials and technology constantly change and (generally) improve.
Or, I'd wager, dropped a 3D printed resin part on a hard floor and watched it shatter like glass.
I-beam made from steel with rolling mill.[2] Can hold up large building.
imagine 3d-printing a TEU. Or a container hauler.
In this case for example a saw making tool & make the beam from local wood using 3D printed gauges.
Not to mention, lots of places on earth don't have local wood suitable for construction...
If you're going to smelt aluminium on your desktop you're definitely going to want three phase power into your house, and probably some sort of asbestos tile to put it on.
Probably quite a good extractor fan too, Shake'n'Vac isn't going to shift that odour.
Its salts, and especially organic salts, are not fun though.
Aluminium gets to be pretty tricky to work with when you want to smelt it though. You need big electric sparks and lots of heat, but if you're a little too cold it won't reduce and if you're a little too hot it'll go on fire, so there's that, which keeps it exciting.
Maintenance is a concern yes, but self perpetuating finances = free time and to quote Socrates - It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.
I would be miserable living simply like that. I don't like spending too much time in nature, I get hot and sweaty and itchy and bothered by bugs. I am always wishing to be building something with electronics, or playing a game, or watching a show or movie.
I also want freedom from work, but I wouldn't use that freedom to "live simply" or get away from technology.
To me, it sounds like you haven't been in nature at enough places to find the one that talks and belongs to you.
Travel more.
I just want others to accept the same about me and my preferences.
From a post earlier today
Right, and also adds "with space age tools".
Just don't get the embers into your eyes and it will be fine. :)
Green mountains, fresh air, and still get 5G and order food or taxi to wherever you are.
Maybe go somewhere colder, or in a different season.
I once spent a week hiking and camping in a rain forest. The first day I was trying to keep dry and comfortable as much as possible, and I was miserable.
The second day I realized I’m just not going to be dry, and I accepted it, and being wet didn’t bother me again the rest of the week. At the end of the day you hang you socks and clothes up near the fire and dry your boots.
Being hot and sweaty and dealing with bugs are irritating, but it’s just part of being outdoors and if you spend significant time outside doing stuff you stop noticing it and just accept it as a part of life.
Don’t let a little discomfort stop you from enjoying nature. You might even start to notice the discomforts of modern life that you’ve accepted as a part of life.
But I don't have any of those for there's a whole spectrum between "go one week hiking" and "live in a city".
What I don’t understand is why it is bad to have gotten used to modern luxuries, or why my life would be better if I gave those up and lived more primitively.
There is a reason we created all of these creature comforts for ourselves, and why very few people actually go through with giving it all up and returning to a more primitive lifestyle. Those things are nice, and most people want them. That is why they were invented in the first place!
I enjoy some time in the forests, especially here in California, and I enjoy short hikes and mountains and the ocean (although I really hate sand.)
Part of it is allergies; I recently was finally tested, and it turns out I am severely allergic to almost all trees and grasses, which explains why I always get so itchy when I am out in nature. I am doing weekly shots to help, and have taken allergy medicine for years (even before I was tested), so we will see if that gets better.
I don’t know what to say about the hot and sweaty and bugs other than to say I think I know myself, and tried for decades to push through those feelings because everyone told me the same thing as you, that being in nature was so great and those things are just part of it and to power through. It never happened for me, and I find the opposite to be true for me… I can power through the discomfort for a while, but eventually it gets to be too much and I need to get away somewhere cool and clean.
I get that you are trying to be helpful and are sharing your experience, but the idea that I am somehow just not understanding how to enjoy nature properly a bit condescending. As I said, I am 43 years old and have spent a ton of time in nature. I have young children, and want them to be able to experience nature, too, so I do spend quite a bit of time in nature these days, because I do think it is important for them.
I have lived in large cities and suburbs, I know the trade offs for both. I agree about the annoyance of traffic and other attributes of the city.
However, you don’t really suffer many of them while you are inside of your house. I have a perfect little personal bubble, where I control the temperature and sounds and light levels. I just like being inside my house, I have infinite things I want to do here.
I have also learned great ways to enjoy nature in my own manner over the years. Our family doesn’t camp, but we do love to rent cabins in the woods. We can go on hikes, the kids can play around in the trees, but then we can go inside and turn on the AC and take warm showers and sleep in nice clean beds.
That is how I like to enjoy nature, on my terms.
I used to feel guilty about this (and a lot of my other preferences that always made me feel like I was doing something wrong or not enjoying life properly, like my dislike of crowds and partying), but as I have gotten older I have become a lot more comfortable with myself and who I am, and no longer feel the need to try to fit in with what I am supposed to like. Finding my wife helped a lot, because she is similar to me and we are very compatible in our lifestyles. Now that I found a partner and have my own family, I no longer feel the need to fit in with how others think I should live my life.
So I hope you really enjoy your trips in nature, and continue to experience it however you want. I will do the same.
Buddhist's view everyday existence within samsara (the cycle of rebirth) as inherently marked by dissatisfaction, pain, and impermanence.
Those kinds of beliefs reflect the lived reality of our ancestors.
It's a bit of a remote place (closest village is a 10 minutes drive and closest highway is a 45+ minutes drive) so I've got to fix many things around the house myself. My new toy, a 3D printer, is helping me with that: today the wife asked for me to fix the parasol (she wanted to enjoy being outside, without getting sunburned), which I did by 3D printing a few parts. I'm in the middle of nowhere but I'm hardly a luddite.
This afternoon we walked to the beach and my daughter caught two crabs and played with them for half an hour before releasing them: you can have both actual nature and technology: those aren't mutually exclusive.
P.S: my SO needs a lifelong treatment (nothing life-threatening as long as she gets her medication) so the "no tech" / "no modernity" stops right there for me.
Except none of that ever existed
That could also become a robotic service too.
But to really zoom out, as someone else pointed out:
"What would homesteading independence look like in the 21st century in terms of sustainability and so forth?"
I am thinking here about more than just infinite intelligence, but infinite power. Science fact presenting itself as science fiction. And for that you'd need locked-up and hidden technology. Also ways to deal with all the waste and by-products of human evolution. Well said. Supporting the environment that supports us.
So Hub-and-Spoke layouts over Megacities. Providing breathing space for land and people. As much DIY as possible using scalable best-practices with commodity items. Censorship-resistant. Free-flowing funds, energy and information. Protected whistleblowers using a local-first Fediverse that can toggle anonymity on/off. Harnessing waste streams and up-cycling them, and doing the full "Earth shift" while still reaching for the stars!
I think another important point to take away from the book is that even if we are not currently on the right path, agriculture and civilization are not inherently exclusive to living in such a way that is in harmony with the world.
There is a world that is possible where we live as good citizens of nature while still retaining civilization and agriculture.
So tying it back to article I think a middle ground is possible, but whatever that might look like, there are other ways to live.
Besides, his point is not that we need to return to barely living off the land, but to live with the land and with nature, not against it.
We don't all want that.
At the same time, I like global shipping, the Internet, good highways, and I definitely hate tariffs. I don't think we need to be disconnected to be happy. We just need to make the right choices where it matters.
"There are those who are convinced that there is more to things; they spend their time chasing that 'more' but typically don't find it. And there are those who are convinced there isn't more to things; they find themselves frustrated at the abyss."
No wonder we love minecraft and Satisfactory and playing murder-hobos in ttrpgs. I would be in favor of restructuring society to be in smaller units, communities where people know and understand eachother, but nobody has that power.
One thing I disagree with "We won’t live in small villages with cobbled streets en masse anymore because we need the giant glass skyscrapers and the congealed intellect of our multi billion population to move ahead"
Do we? What is "moving ahead"? I would say there's a good chance our way of life is simply going to waste all the resouces that sustains it and collapse over a long period of time without moving on to a "higher" state. I know lots of people working in tech, none of whom actually advance useful technology. Instead they advance technology that makes their bosses rich and makes people consume more for no real benefit. That's actually the opposite of useful. The glass skyscrapers are not helping us move ahead.
We can let the weirdos that want to live in huge cities make the anti-pneumonia medicine and use it elsewhere.
I get it, it can be alienating to live in modern society. But you can create meaning and community even today. Probably not if you spend 80 hours a week in the office, but if you put in the effort to get to know your neighbors, join local sports clubs and keep up with the friendships you've built over the years, having a social group is not out of reach. It's just that you can't maximize for two different goals at the same time.
Humans were built to socialize and live in societies though. It's part of our own nature to group up and form communities.
Cities in the 50,000 to 250,000 population range are not doing that well. That's what drives population to mega-cities. This, when you think about it, is strange. A city in that size is big enough to support multiple factories, large retail establishments, fully equipped hospitals, entertainment businesses, repair services for all key technologies, and an airport. So why don't such cities outperform mega-cities, where the friction costs of scale start to get in the way?
This has been studied. Search for "medium sized cities" "problems". The phrase "urban shrinkage" is used in Europe. In most of the developed world, medium cities are not doing well. What seems to happen is that young people leave, the average age becomes older, a smaller fraction of people are in the workforce, factories close, and a slow death begins. Those forms of decline feed each other.
Japan is furthest along this path. Only Tokyo and Osaka grow; the rest of the country has hollowed out. It's a big issue in the US and in Germany. Don't know about other countries.
Without growth, medium sized cities age and die. Yet population is leveling off. Now what?
They're pathetically pretechnological or brilliantly post-technological.
- Stargate Atlantis ep. 14: SanctuaryThe one with the purple space bazooka
Go to some of the poorer parts of the world and live the life of a subsistence farmer for a while.
There is a reason people move to cities, and it generally involves their children not starving to death.