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

401–410 of 429 posts

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#401

Post by account42 »

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.

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.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#402

Post by account42 »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #322
Jedd wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#403

Post by account42 »

doix wrote: post #304
rhubarbtree wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#404

Post by account42 »

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.

Yet the author of TFA owns a Macbook, iPad, iPhone and Apple Watch. Sounds more like peak consumerism to me.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#406

Post by bluebarbet »

account42 wrote: post #404
bluebarbet wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yet the author of TFA owns a Macbook, iPad, iPhone and Apple Watch. Sounds more like peak consumerism to me.

Sure. But for the fridge, TV, washing machine and car - which together contain orders of magnitude more embodied carbon and rare minerals than his pocket-sized gadgets - he's condemned by his lifestyle to sharing them with others.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#407

Post by doix »

account42 wrote: post #403
doix wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#408

Post by falcor84 »

adastra22 wrote: post #358
falcor84 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But… why? What you describe sounds like a dystopic vision, but you seem enthusiastic about it? Why?

I grew up watching Star Trek and its replicators ("Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"). So a core part of me is excited about this ideal future world where we wouldn't need to work to sustain ourselves, but would be free to use our time to explore the universe, or learn, or make art, or manage a vineyard.

To me this vision of us being able to do whatever we want, while machines are available to take care of our necessities, to the extent we chose to rely on them, is almost heaven-like.

And for a prehistoric context, according to researchers such as James Suzman, earlier in human history, we were a lot closer to this ideal than we are now [0].

[0] https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/for-95-percent-of-human...

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#409

Post by 542354234235 »

adastra22 wrote: post #359
bmicraft wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a lot of countries, it did go away.

It may have been made illegal, but it hasn’t gone away.

While slavery exists in various forms (wage slavery, prison labor, etc.) it is still important to make the distinction between those and the extreme form of chattel slavery that existed from the 16th to 19th century. People, and all their descendants, being literal property, able to be tortured, raped, and murdered with the same legal status as a couch tossed in a dumpster, is not the same as modern versions of slavery.

Re: Indefinite Backpack Travel

#410

Post by 542354234235 »

bluebarbet wrote: post #351
Jedd wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

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.

Post reply on HN