Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indefinite Backpack Travel

jeremymaluf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 429 posts

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#321

Post by Loocid »

dominicrose wrote: post #320
Loocid wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#322

Post by tenuousemphasis »

Jedd wrote: post #287
jojobas wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#323

Post by jeevships »

driverdan wrote: post #239

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 man…

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?

> 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.

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...

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#324

Post by rhubarbtree »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #307
rhubarbtree wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#325

Post by owenversteeg »

Liftyee wrote: post #229
owenversteeg wrote: post #55

I've done this before (not indefinitely, but for many trips around the world.) I agree with the author on a lot: 1) it's not a good way to live long term, 2) traveling with as little as possible completely transforms the traveling experience, 3) zero-bag travel is great, 4) a good quality small bag with well designed compartments is critical, 5) M-series Macs are the only way to go, 6) two thumb drives is very conven…

I also try and avoid synthetic fabrics especially for everyday use. What's your rationale behind it? Asking because I'm not exactly sure why I hold this view, and need some inspiration.

As far as concrete facts go, 1) we know that plastic fabrics (polyester, nylon, etc) generate airborne plastic particles which we then breathe in, 2) they exacerbate certain skin conditions, 3) they start to stink much faster than natural fibers, 4) they burn incredibly fast and fuse to your skin and 5) they’re funding the oil industry. Those factors alone are enough for me to essentially ban them from my body.

Beyond facts, there is also a certain ugly vibe to plastic clothes. They’re cheap and impersonal and disposable and typically generic. I have never really fallen in love with a polyester product. When it came time to throw away my polyester clothes, I wasn’t surprised to find that everything I really loved was wool/cotton/silk.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#326

Post by rhubarbtree »

octo888 wrote: post #38

Shoes are always what get me. Wearing the same pair 2 days in a row isn't great for bacteria etc. Plus wanting sandals/flip-flops for the beach. Proper boots for any kind of hiking. Then I feel awkward particularly in Europe in the evening going to restaurants in trainers, so a pair of smart shoes is useful. Not saying I always take that entire combo, but almost always more than 1 pair.

Two pairs is enough. Religiously alternate days and take them off wherever possible and open them up to air them. Make sure they’re breathable.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#327

Post by Dylan16807 »

rhubarbtree wrote: post #324
Dylan16807 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#328

Post by reassess_blind »

bluehatbrit wrote: post #167
coffeebeqn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is the list is not at all far from “latest Apple and arc’teryx” which I’d consider the consumerist side he’s complaining about but - some of those items are objectively really high quality and durable

I found this a bit odd, especially when the author mentioned they lose their apple watch a lot so buy an older one. It feels peculiar to buy such an objectively expensive high end item when you know you constantly lose it, and barely use any of it's features. To me that is continual overconsumption. I can't pretend I don't have my own contradictions going on, so I'm not having a go at the author. But I did find it a…

'One baggers', at least those who post online about it, are very consumerist in general despite the practice being about minimalism.

You'll find people posting about upgrading their bag from the $300 Aer Travel Pack, to the $400 Goruck GR2 because of style preference. I've seen someone talking about repurchasing items they already own in a particular color to match their packs color scheme.

I think the motivation for many has nothing to do with being anti-consumerist and more about just freedom to travel without paying-for/carrying-around checked-in luggage and all the other benefits of travelling light, which is fine.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#329

Post by Muromec »

falcor84 wrote: post #311
Ferret7446 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't survive with just a backpack if other people "overcame their materialism" and didn't own all of the capital that allowed you to survive, like providing you your equipment, food, knowledge, and emergency rescue if it came to it. Criticizing "hedonism" is its own kind of hedonism, or in common parlance, a first world problem. It is a luxury that cannot be indulged by poor societies.

There might be some version of a future where robots take care of managing the industry for our benefit in a post-scarcity setting, allowing us humans to live as simple a life as we want, knowing that when a material need arises the robots will be willing and able to quickly fulfill it for us. I don't think that's where we're headed, but I like imagining.

With the direction everything is moving, we will get back slavery faster than we will get robots and AGI.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#330

Post by Ianixx56 »

bluebarbet wrote: post #218
kmoser wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the author is literally throwing away seasonal items, the environmental trade-off is that they probably purchase far fewer items than the average person.

This. The disincentive to buy anything is constantly present when you live out of a bag. It's an odd way to defeat the rampant consumerism of modern society, but it works.

[dead]
Post reply on HN