Okay, if you're never going to sell it, how is that an investment? That's like writing a check to a securities broker and saying, "Buy some mutual funds or something, but I never want my money back, or any of the money it might make."

You say you were thinking about retirement, do you mean you plan to take out loans against the value of your house to provide a salary? Or that you want a paid-off house to live in by the time you're retired? Either way, that still doesn't make it an investment.


Umm...OK what are you going to live in? A cardboard box?
Once your house is paid off all you owe is utilities..and in some states no real estate tax over age 65

I think we are getting off topic. The OP was talking about simplicity. While investments can be included in a simple life, this post along with some other has lost the point of the OP, so if anything this post should talk about how paying a mortgage for a house makes the poster feels that his or her life is simpler.

This is true, it was not the intention to discuss the different types of investments. But this always happens to these discussions.


The plan is to have it paid off by retirement and stay. After that who knows what will happen and by just about everybody that knows what they are doing,a house is the number 1 investment you should do. Now i got in when it was 80,000 and now that its woreth 600,000,i call that a investment that i can sell if i need to for money,leave to my kids to help them or stay there and not worry about a landlord.

Sorry but each person decides for themselves what they "should do". Your judgement as to who "knows what they are doing", is obviously subjective as well. I see the great money-making potential in owning real estate, I really do. But to automatically do whatever brings me the greatest ROI, is to me missing the point of life. It CAN be that, but each of us should really do whatever we feel like.

Some of the greatest minds in the history of humankind lived and worked in rented spaces. Engineers, artists, doctors, scientists, writers... Are you saying they did not know what they were doing? Perhaps their interests and focus were elsewhere. Can you imagine Kerouac growing zucchini and fixing the porch steps? I am not saying that I measure up to these people, but I too see my interests being elsewhere.

I also think that homeowners often quite exaggerate the "hassles" of renting. I rent and I don't worry about my landlord -- imagine that. What is there to worry about, really? I'm sorry you made bad experiences while renting. Care to tell us what was so bad? I know that many landlords try to screw with renters. There's always a few bad apples. But you have to know your rights.

Also most so-called "homeowners" *can* be thrown out of their "own" houses as well, if they miss a few mortgage payments or am I wrong?


BTW,what are you doing for money when your 60?

As pointed out several times in this thread before, owning a house is not the only way to invest your money. If I'm still alive at 60, chances are I will continue to live a modest but very happy and intellectually stimulating life, using the money I saved and let work for me over the years.


If i buy for 80,000 and sell for 600,000,i'm thinking thats an investment but maybe i have this all wrong. BTW,anyone that would rather be in an apartment and pay for nothing then a house to own is nuts. I've lived in rented houses,apartments and mobil homes and it sucked,but hey,thats me.

Hey, peace bro. Why are you so defensive? Even though I wouldn't do it, I'm not saying that owning a house is wrong. Why do you call me and everybody else who rents, nuts? Are you sure you can make such a general judgement call?

Also, your situation is quite unique. These days 80,000 bucks won't get you crap. In this city, the cheapest apartments that I would consider living in go for half a mil. And NO, I wouldn't move to somewhere far out where I can get a house for 150K. I would miss Indian food too much.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=163801&goto=newpost


Oh brother. Cooking isn't as hard as you think.
By the way, paying rent is simply flushing money down the toilet.
If you're that lazy, you probably aren't much of an investor in general.

And NO, I wouldn't move to somewhere far out where I can get a house for 150K. I would miss Indian food too much.
Maybe you should invest in an Indian restaurant with upstairs living quarters.

By the way, paying rent is simply flushing money down the toilet.
If you're that lazy, you probably aren't much of an investor in general.

I hear you, and I don't mean to offend, but perhaps you're on a tighter budget than some of us, so flushing money down the toilet means more to you.

Flushing or no, some of the happiest fellows I know rent - some of them multiple pads in different cities at once - and they're certainly not bad investors or poor money-makers. Just people who know a hot pad when they see one and who want to live in it, have access to it, or move out of it as they please with as little rigamarole as possible - granted, they are bachelors every one, with loads of disposable and typically shameless urbanites. A fellow doctor friend of mine has a high-rise pad that is simply amazing, and overlooks the entire city of Chicago. I don't see him complaining about anything, and I know he very literally can't buy the place.

My old piano teacher (now deceased), Yvar Mikhashoff, used to travel around the world as a concert performer, but he was also a professor at UB, so he had a little apartment he rented out for when he was in Buffalo. No complaints, and a charming place. It turns out he never needed to own it. He died well before he would have been able to pay it off. In light of that, we are all ultimately renters of space in this world, and whatever we collect in it, we don't get to take it with us in the end.

I also have a friend with both an owned home in Seattle and a hideaway rental apartment in Hawaii, and he seems to be okay with flushing his money down the drain for those trips to the island, while being "smart" by building his home in Seattle.

What I'm getting at: Some of us have the dough to drop frivolously, and are still able to invest. Who among us can tell anyone else they're doing it all wrong if we don't know what the other guy is really doing? I've been compounding interest since I was 19, I have a decent career, and I come from an 'old riche' New England prep family to boot. I'm happy in my little rental cottage for now, and I don't feel crunched into any need to buy a house because I have a nomad streak; nor do I feel like I want to own this one or like it's a big deal that my rental money is lining someone else's pockets. I just want to live in this place for a little while until I get bored of this town and eventually move on to a more exciting one. Where? Who cares? When? Up to me. My month-to-month lease allows me that in spades. Maybe I'm wasting my dough, but I get something out of it, so it's indeed not a waste (it is to you; not to me, and I'm more important in this equation since it's my money) and it's no big. Maybe I'll find somewhere perfect and get a house there someday, but not now, and not here. In any case, I can deal just fine. Home ownership, like car ownership, isn't for everybody, and it's not always the smart choice.

Oh brother. Cooking isn't as hard as you think.
By the way, paying rent is simply flushing money down the toilet.
If you're that lazy, you probably aren't much of an investor in general.Rent or own, you're probably going to end up paying about the same for shelter, usually 1/4 to 1/3 of your income.

If you own you are taking a risk that your property will be worth less some day. You're obviously hoping it will be worth more, but you never know that. (Look at New Orleans :() Any investment with a payoff means you must assume risks. The riskier the investment the greater the payoff. Period.

If you rent, you don't stand a chance of making any money or losing any money. You rest peacefully, and let the landlord assume the risk. Also you don't have to worry about maintenence, insurance, taxes, etc.

All I'm saying is that obviously there are advantages to renting and buying both. if there weren't, they wouldn't both exist because eveyody would choose the other. If you don't understand that you don't understand markets!

The only thing that's stupid, shokhead and fxjohn, is assuming that your choice is best for somebody else. Not even a proffessional financial advisor would do that!

I hear you, and I don't mean to offend, but perhaps you're on a tighter budget than some of us, so flushing money down the toilet means more to you.
.


Haha..doubt it. I will add a caveat to my statement that renting is dumb. If you move alot, renting is smarter.
If you think of the way a house appreciates, vs flushing the money in rent, it is a sizeable sum.
I am being more frugal..thus "living simply" more than most so I can retire early.
Like you said....everyone is different.

Rent or own, you're probably going to end up paying about the same for shelter, usually 1/4 to 1/3 of your income.

If you own you are taking a risk that your property will be worth less some day. You're obviously hoping it will be worth more, but you never know that. (Look at New Orleans :() Any investment with a payoff means you must assume risks. The riskier the investment the greater the payoff. Period.

If you rent, you don't stand a chance of making any money or losing any money. You rest peacefully, and let the landlord assume the risk. Also you don't have to worry about maintenence, insurance, taxes, etc.

All I'm saying is that obviously there are advantages to renting and buying both. if there weren't, they wouldn't both exist because eveyody would choose the other. If you don't understand that you don't understand markets!

The only thing that's stupid, shokhead and fxjohn, is assuming that your choice is best for somebody else. Not even a proffessional financial advisor would do that!

Roody, there's not much risk if you insure your property.

Roody, there's not much risk if you insure your property.
Well, there still is in the very rare circumstance of a total disaster. New Orleans property isn't worth much now because the infrastructure is so devastated--roads, transit, hospitals, schools, etc. Who's gonna buy a house in new Orleans right now even if it is undamaged?

Granted, this isn't likely to happen in Indiana, or even down south. But some people are paying way too much for houses right now, and many of them are going to be hurting if they're even late with a payment or something. Like any other investment, do some research and/or get some professional advic before you sign the mortgage.

Oh brother. Cooking isn't as hard as you think.
By the way, paying rent is simply flushing money down the toilet.
If you're that lazy, you probably aren't much of an investor in general.

You know what, you're right. I'm stupid and lazy. All because I rent. I can not accomplish anything in life (especially financial security), unless I own my house. And the only explanation why becoming 'much of an investor' isn't one of my life's top goals, is that I'm lazy. Understood.

God. I rest my case. Can we go back on topic now please?

ps. BTW, I'm a great cook. But I like eating out as well. I can afford it, so it's no big of a deal. Dig?

Any investment with a payoff means you must assume risks. The riskier the investment the greater the payoff. Period.

Actually that's not quite accurate - riskier investments have greater potential returns, at the same time they have a greater potential for loss - that's why they're risky. (I was a securities-licensed financial advisor in a previous life.)



By the way, paying rent is simply flushing money down the toilet.

If you think of the way a house appreciates, vs flushing the money in rent, it is a sizeable sum.

If I flush money down the toilet, all I have is a freshly flushed (and probably clogged) toilet. When I pay my rent each month, I am securing another 30 days of four walls and a roof, plus 24-hour maintenance service, and (in my case) heat, lights, running water, and furniture. Some of the rent must necessarily go towards the landlord's overhead like property taxes, maintenance, etc - but I don't have to deal with any of that, and what I pay is much less than if it were my personal responsibility to pay those things on a property I own.

The anti-renting home owners posting here are still ignoring the fact that a house is not a viable investment unless and until you receive a return on the money you put into it. (Arguably, if you get peace of mind from owning, if you take pride in maintaining a nice yard, etc, that could be called a return, but certainly not a monetary one.) Equity is an often-misunderstood concept. "Renting is a waste of money, owning is an investment" is the line used by lenders, realtors, home builders - all the people who stand to profit from home sales - and it is far too widely and blindly accepted. Not enough people question this logic, think it through to try to discover how buying a home could be an investment. So your house is now "worth" X times as much as when you bought it? Great, can you buy groceries with that worth? Can you pay a doctor's bill? Can you go out for dinner and a movie on your house's value? (Yes, but you have to take out a loan against your house.) No matter how much "value" your house has gained or lost, none of it is realized until you sell the house. Then you are starting over - buy another house, or rent?

If you prefer to own rather than rent, that's great - I hope it works for you. But don't condem renting outright, especially not by using specious arguments that you've been fed by those who have profited from your ownership. This harks back to the discussion in the thread regarding car-free living being a threat to some people - you seem overly defensive of your home ownership. Could it be because you are insecure as to whether you've made the right choice after all, or because the arguments for it that you have been supplied with don't ring true when you stop to think about them?

Maybe you should invest in an Indian restaurant with upstairs living quarters.

That would be so sweet.

If I flush money down the toilet, all I have is a freshly flushed (and probably clogged) toilet. When I pay my rent each month, I am securing another 30 days of four walls and a roof, plus 24-hour maintenance service, and (in my case) heat, lights, running water, and furniture. Some of the rent must necessarily go towards the landlord's overhead like property taxes, maintenance, etc - but I don't have to deal with any of that, and what I pay is much less than if it were my personal responsibility to pay those things on a property I own.

?


Wrong. Your landlord is using your rent to pay his mortgage AND make money.

Wrong. Your landlord is using your rent to pay his mortgage AND make money.

Yes, and I mentioned that. That does not mean that I would pay less for mortgage, PMI, insurance, and maintenance if I owned the place. My landlord is not getting rent just from me - there are four other apartments that he rents out. He has my rent times five - that is how he is able to pay his mortgage etc and still make money.

In my situation, considering my rent, local cost of living, local land prices, and construction plus other concomitant building costs (well drilling, occupancy permit, etc), it is cheaper, not more expensive, for me to rent an apartment than to buy or build a home. That's hardly flushing money down the toilet. For you maybe it's different.

Spending money is a good thing. It keeps the economy going. Booya!

One other thing, to bring this thread back on topic. In my experience those who own houses tend to accumulate a lot of **** they use once, then put in the garage and never look at it again. Because I rent and move around (and have no car), my life is very "lightweight" in terms of possessions. There's a huge chunk of money NOT spent right there! Money that I use to live conveniently :)

One other thing, to bring this thread back on topic. In my experience those who own houses tend to accumulate a lot of **** they use once, then put in the garage and never look at it again. Because I rent and move around (and have no car), my life is very "lightweight" in terms of possessions. There's a huge chunk of money NOT spent right there! Money that I use to live conveniently :)

Yeah, sorry for keeping the thread hijack going, iBarna, but sometimes I can't resist debating with people who make ridiculous and/or illogical arguments.

I definitely agree on the thought about houses encouraging more accumulation of stuff. It seems that generally the more space one has, the more stuff one gets to fill it. I met a friend of my neighbor's (actually also a neighbor of his, but in another town) who was talking about the outbuilding he just put behind his house. He made it just as big as he possibly could according to city land-use laws, and now that it's passed inspection, plans to build on to it some more. He apparently cleared out his original attached garage, moving it all into the new outbuilding, and now he can actually park two cars in his two-car garage (gasp!). I guess he's got like five cars, four or five snowmobiles, a few motorcycles...he found an entire auto engine he had forgotten he had. Now that he's got the room, he wants to get even more.

I freely admit I have too much stuff, and even after moving six times in the last three and a half years, I still haven't managed to have much of a net loss through attrition. Seems like when I get rid of some stuff, I get more to replace it. But I am working on it, and I think I'm getting a little better. It helps that my lifestyle has changed pretty significantly with this last move; being outside more means I feel less need to keep a lot of my inside hobby stuff. I just have to be careful not to accumulate too many bikes!

Yes, and I mentioned that. That does not mean that I would pay less for mortgage, PMI, insurance, and maintenance if I owned the place. My landlord is not getting rent just from me - there are four other apartments that he rents out. He has my rent times five - that is how he is able to pay his mortgage etc and still make money.

In my situation, considering my rent, local cost of living, local land prices, and construction plus other concomitant building costs (well drilling, occupancy permit, etc), it is cheaper, not more expensive, for me to rent an apartment than to buy or build a home. That's hardly flushing money down the toilet. For you maybe it's different.

Ok, the five apartment part of your argument means NOTHING. It's neither here nor there.
What about people who rent a single house? Money swirling down the drain.
How much is your rent and utilities?

Ok, the five apartment part of your argument means NOTHING. It's neither here nor there.
What about people who rent a single house? Money swirling down the drain.
How much is your rent and utilities?

In my situation

Dude, I'm done with this here. If you want to take it to PM's, fine, but let's get iBarna's thread back on topic.

Dude, I'm done with this here. If you want to take it to PM's, fine, but let's get iBarna's thread back on topic.


Don't get so upset..I want people to think about the frugal lifestyle, and living simply.
Saving ALOT of money is cool, it's empowering.

That is one of the reason I want a small living space, so that I am never force to fill a lot of space when I only need so much.

That is one of the reason I want a small living space, so that I am never force to fill a lot of space when I only need so much.
Maybe these guys are leading the simple life you think is so charming. I suspect they would be glad to trade for your possessions and a warm, dry place to put them. Nonetheless, choosing to lead a simple life free of worldy possessions and responsibilities has nothing to do with bicycling.

Maybe these guys are leading the simple life you think is so charming. I suspect they would be glad to trade for your possessions and a warm, dry place to put them. Nonetheless, choosing to lead a simple life free of worldy possessions and responsibilities has nothing to do with bicycling.

No, they don't seem to be living simply, they appear to me to simply be living. They're homeless. No one here said they wanted to be homeless. Living simply may not be directly related to bicycling, but it can be closely tied to Living Car Free...hey wait, that's the forum we're in! If you don't want to discuss it, don't come into this subforum. If you don't give a crap about living car-free, don't even come into LCF. At any rate, go troll somewhere else.

No, they don't seem to be living simply, they appear to me to simply be living. They're homeless. No one here said they wanted to be homeless. Living simply may not be directly related to bicycling, but it can be closely tied to Living Car Free...hey wait, that's the forum we're in! If you don't want to discuss it, don't come into this subforum. If you don't give a crap about living car-free, don't even come into LCF. At any rate, go troll somewhere else.

no kidding. making a conscience choice to be selective about what i spend my monday on, and spending LESS money than i MAKE, rather than blindly following the rule of going heavily into debt for the betterment of the economy and what my neighbor's may think of my posessions is much different than being homeless and/or penniless.

the people you reference have mental or addiction problems, or are perhaps not interested in any sort of responsibility. the people commenting on this thread have made specific choices about what responsibilities they want in life, and shunning a life devoted to materialism and excess is far different. comparing them to a homeless person is insulting, and comparing a homeless person to us loses sight of what resources they may need.

p.s. what were we told to do right after 9/11? go shopping. that's right. spend money, (or for some go further into debt, for crap we don't need, for the good of the economy). that's about as pathetic as the references you've made.

Simple is a relative term. For an apples to apples discussion, be as honest as you can:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/footprintlife.htm

It's fair to say that everyone in this forum has "too much", and it's unrealistic to say that everyone should all have "the same". The real discussion should be this:

Are you truley aware of what you consume? Striving for simplicity, where would you be willing to improve?

I'm not perfect, I'm not even car free now. I used to live very simply until I had children. I am aware of my family's consumption, and teach my children in terms of "choices" in life and the effects of choices made. At 2 and 4, they're getting it. That's what I strive for.

the people you reference have mental or addiction problems, or are perhaps not interested in any sort of responsibility. the people commenting on this thread have made specific choices about what responsibilities they want in life, and shunning a life devoted to materialism and excess is far different. comparing them to a homeless person is insulting, and comparing a homeless person to us loses sight of what resources they may need.

I'll keep that in mind the next time someone quotes the total number of "car-free people" who live in the big US cities (IAW the US Census data) and seem to be doing just fine.

Does the amount of stuff you have define your life? I don't think we are materialistic, yet compared to some- we probably have a fair amount of stuff.
I say being materialistic means obsessed with getting new stuff. But, even more important stuff you do not really need or stuff that is to impress someone else.
We do not fit that category. We are not driven by getting new stuff or impressing others with excess money , we do not have.
Yet, you live once. We do have our wants. Does that make us gluttons. Our cars must be energy efficient. Would prefer to bike. Prefer everyday clothes. Hemp would do if available. Or just jeans, dockers. Armani jacket. No way. More like an old tweed or courdroy jacket and jeans.
What defines simplicity. Living like a monk or just not being consumed by consumerism. What is important to us. Vacations,seeing the world. Yes. You only live once. Why not. Heck. The older generation think Lap tops consumerist.
I say it is the values you display not what you have.

The amount of stuff is just an easy indicator of simple living, but it is not the only thing. If a person is involved with so many activites that he or she must eat doing one of his or her club meetings, the aforementioned person is not living simple. Living simple is about living to live not living to impress or living to show off or living to buy, but just enjoying your time when you come home, not be bother with doing this and that or paying that bill and that thing, and taking that out and fixing that thing, but just doing what you enjoy. Living a life worth living. That is what simple living is to me.

Wow, this is a great thread! I've been reading everyones responses and many of you have some great ideas and reasons for paring down ones life. For me I just can't stand clutter. I think it's because my mother was an absolute pack-rat. She saved everything and to this day still does and I suppose I grew up conscious of never wanting to be a pack-rat.

Currently I live in a 3 bedroom townhouse by myself and it's just way to much for me. Not only in terms of space but everything associated with taking care of it. Though I'm a renter and repairs don't cost me anything the daily upkeep of just cleaning and keeping things tidy is a chore. I'm looking into renting either a 1 bedroom or studio aprtment within ear-shot of my job this spring. As a result of that I'm also looking to go car-free as well.

After reading your many post through the morning I came up with a list of things that I can do without. I plan on giving away much of my living room set to my brother as I won't have the room in my new place. If I go with the studio then my bed can go as well, same with the kitchen table. I've decided that cable TV is next on the list, $43.00 a month is just too much for the garbage on TV these days though I will need my broadband internet, I gotta have it.

With losing my truck, renting a smaller place, no cable and other oods and ends I expect I can save roughly $700.00 a month if not more. Some I can put to charity while the rest can go into helping me open my own PC shop one day.

That sounds great. I hope you are able to get exactly what you expect out of oyur plans.

For me I just can't stand clutter. I think it's because my mother was an absolute pack-rat. She saved everything and to this day still does and I suppose I grew up conscious of never wanting to be a pack-rat.

My mother was/is a pack rat as well, unfortunately I learned it from her rather than getting turned off by it. :(

It's good to hear you were inspired by this thread, I hope you are able to live just the way you want, it sounds good!

With losing my truck, renting a smaller place, no cable and other oods and ends I expect I can save roughly $700.00 a month if not more. Some I can put to charity while the rest can go into helping me open my own PC shop one day.

Way to go, DavidLee. In my opinion, it's good for the world, when people decide to live in spaces no larger than they need (and don't have to clean/heat/cool a larger space than they need) and let go of possessions they don't need. There are plenty of people who could benefit from having more possessions and resources, and those of us who have more than enough can do our part by not overconsuming and voting/giving in ways that hopefully direct resources to people who need them.

I have nothing against having nice things ( plasma tv's, I Pods, Pc's) but if a person can't afford to buy them, than they shouldn't buy them. I have a bike, a tv ( not a plasma or anything like that) a CD player.

I have no car ( I have a drivers licence though) and I am happy. If Icome across some extra money and I can afford to buy something than I will buy it. I try and buy things for my bike before I buy things for myself. I pretty well have all I need.

Hey would not buying things for your bike be buying things for yourself as well?

Living simply is next to impossiblewith kids, because you've got all of their cr** and sh** to deal with. Honestly, children are the most messy creatures on the planet, and it seems to get worse in the teen years.

When my son goes to college in four years, the house will be much simpler and cleaner!

Well, I live in community with about 30 other people. We cook for one another and have a chore schedule to keep our 5 acres clean. It so happens that I also live across the street from the office. I pay about $200 for room and board as well. I walk to work everyday and use the bike for getting around town. I own a computer. I'd be completely car free, but as an itinerate speaker, I'm on the road a lot and driving is a vital part of that--though I usually rent one or use a company car. I'm with a non-profit doing aid work in the 2/3 world and many of us seek to model a simple lifestyle to reflect the lives of those we are seeking to impact.

But the guy across the street was spending 30 dollars a day on gas to run his large tv and all the items in his house. I realized I can be happy with a hot cup of coffee and a warm meal. It was nice to go to the spare room and see so much space. I

No hurricane here. Yet I'm thankful also for these same things. Hoping this will go better for you smil'n

I live across the street from Ocean Beach and next door to Golden Gate Park. All I care to do is surf and ride my bike, so my needs are met by default.

No hurricane here. Yet I'm thankful also for these same things. Hoping this will go better for you smil'n


I am hoping for a quiet year. But you never now. I found that the generator was not needed by me. I spent several nights reading by lantern. Of course it was nice to have the guy across the street for one hot meal a day. Of course the gas powered shower gave me something to look forward to.

Hey would not buying things for your bike be buying things for yourself as well?

Hey that's a good idea..."honey, it's not for me, it's for the bike!"

my partner and i are going through some of these issues. she got admitted to a phd program at mich state starting this august and we are debating whether we want to buy or rent-either way we want to get a bigger place than we have now so that we have a space to store and work on bikes besides next to the dining room table. :) and possibly create a rock climbing space-i think the majority of our stuff is based on the activities we like to do-ride bikes, camp, rock climb, snow shoe-your typical outdoor couple.

but i also am coming out of 3 years of making little money - being in grad school, then doing a one year stint in Americorps-all that time depleted my savings account-although aside from school debt, my ccs are pretty much untouched. but having a regular full time job is a real struggle at times-i already bought a new bike-and sold my old one through craigslist-but i felt like the whole time i was making less money i was making a list of things i "needed" to do once i got a paying job again-of course i didn't realize that until the last couple of months-when the paychecks started rolling in...

This is one inspiring forum. I don't live very simply at all--three part-time jobs, multiple sports (kayaking, skateboarding, swimming, running, biking, and chasing my 8 year old daughter around the house), and a very cluttered schedule and house. I am interested in reducing my footprint on planet earth, and have taken some modest steps in that direction--I'm vegan, live purposefully in a two-family house in the city rather than the 'burbs, drive a biodiesel-fueled car, give a good chunk of my income to The Nature Conservancy, and have been biking to two of my three worksites for a couple of months now... but I'm a serious clutter-head, as is my wife. You've given me much to think about; I'm not sure I'll ever look at shopping in exactly the same way again. It's so easy to fetish-ize objects. Rather than thinking what I "need" for my bike and outdoorsy lifestyle next, I'm thinking in reverse--what can I do without? Muchas gracias,

NuCommuter
Cambridge, Mass.

I've been trolling this thread for a few weeks now. I want to say thank you for this great thread. Though I am far from simple living, this has helped in evaluting many of my own wants and needs. Anyone that has made it car free has my praise, as this seems so far away from what I could do.

Keep up the great work and thanks for the great thread.

"Throw your tv at your car."

I love that tagline! Very Abbeyesque!

Wonderful thread, except for some of the personal attacks.

I tip my hat to my fellow "simple livers" and offer sincere words of encouragement to each. I was once a heavy consumer, drunk on the elixir of things and a fat paycheck. But one day while sitting on my patio over looking the unnatural deep green landscape of a golf course, I suddenly came to the realization that something was terribly wrong.

Over the next ten years, I went through a process of reeducation and devoted my life to sustainable living and environmental protection. But it's not been easy.

I'm the Chief Operating Officer of a high tech company, have a good income and lots of responsibilities working with people who do not share my worldview. As far as I can tell, I'm the only corporate officer in my city that commutes by bike to work. And I don't know of any other companies that use consensus process for decision making and offer all employees ownership and decision making ability. I guess you could say it's my own little social experiment. But I digress.

I'm married and have three kids. Of course, all want cars. One in college has a car; one in college does not. My wife drives my 1988 BMW 528e, the last car I ever bought, and I'll never buy another.

We currently live in a rented house, and there are very good reasons for this choice. iBarna, you are not alone. I'm not a big fan of the whole land/home ownership thing, although you can easily make a sound fiscal case for it. I've always more closely identified with early Native American concepts of land stewardship and occupancy. However, my goal is to ultimately purchase some land and build a small cabin somewhere. I think that's the only way I'll be able to protect land from development, not worry about being kicked off, restore native flora and protect native fauna.

But the fact remains that home ownership has become a cudgel of sorts in our society. A way for people to accumulate wealth and therefore power over others, and it also drives development and the exhaustion of resources and is therefore inherently unsustainable.

I do own books, music and art, most of the latter produced by friends and my son, a student at Maryland Institute College of Art. And camping gear. I'm an avvid backpacker but not a "gear head."

We live in a community where everything is accessible by walking or by cycling, and we're fortunate to have a network of bike lanes.

I maintain a garden, and I'm working to produce as much food as possible.

Our landlord is gracious and kind and has agreed to let me convert the property to a wildlife preserve of sorts, never using chemicals and allowing some deadfall and refuse to remain for the critters. I'm also an amateur ornithologist.

I don't use credit cards and only keep a debit card for traveling needs.

In short, we attempt to "live in place," meaning, we try to live locally, buy locally and use as little fossil fuel as possible. I believe this is only path to sustainability. Sustainable means that the society does not consume more natural resources than can be replenished by natural biological and geophysical cycles, and does not produce waste faster than can be dispersed by natural biological and geophysical cycles.

I think its pretty clear that any group that does not follow these simple guidelines will not long last.

Want a sustainable society? Well, social systems derive from the actions of the people, reflecting those actions and instructing new members of society on how to be a successful human being. It seems unlikely that we can change our social system without first changing our behavior. There must first be a successful society of people living in harmony with local cycles, before it can be a model for all human societies, in their infinite variations on the theme.

So, we can start with what we have, discard what we don't need, reject the foolishness and destructiveness of the present consumptive example and begin to ease toward a lifeway offering a path to a more sustainable future.

But the fact remains that home ownership has become a cudgel of sorts in our society. A way for people to accumulate wealth and therefore power over others, and it also drives development and the exhaustion of resources and is therefore inherently unsustainable.


Ownership of land has always been about wealth and power dating back to long before the feudal system of government in Europe (one notable example of this is William I of England and his "Doomsday Book"). It is in no way new nor is it limited to "our society". Life is for most people (and animals) a competition for resources.

The U.S. lifestyle probably is unsustainable for economic reason if nothing else. Unfortunately, China is waiting to take our place.

Ownership of land has always been about wealth and power dating back to long before the feudal system of government in Europe (one notable example of this is William I of England and his "Doomsday Book"). It is in no way new nor is it limited to "our society". Life is for most people (and animals) a competition for resources.

The U.S. lifestyle probably is unsustainable for economic reason if nothing else. Unfortunately, China is waiting to take our place.

That is a true statement. However, my concern is with the present society.

But you are not entirely correct about "competition for resources," and I would add that humans are animals, which is another problem in our society. Many (most) people (anthropocentrism) see themselves as somehow separate or superior to other animals, and they are not.

In the current orthodoxy, the term struggle is endowed with Hobbesian and Social-Darwinian meanings: struggle is the war against all and the survival of the fittest in a regime of continual, mutual aggression. This notion was not Darwin's, and it is not only ideologically distorted, but in my opinion, factually wrong. By no means do all creatures behave in this way. In fact, no creature, not even the "king of the jungle," endures wholly through predation. Look at the simplist creatures, microscopic cellular beings on which the entire biosphere rests.

The British palaeontologist Richard Fortey points out, the first "sustainable" systems, the mat creatures or stromatolites whose lineage goes 3 billion years back to the Precambian period (roughly 2.4 billion years before the emergence of more complex multicellular organisms), and that still endure in certain protected locales, are composed of layers of prokaryotic bacteria, the topmost, doing photosynthesis, the lower layers breaking down the waste products of the upper by fermentation, the whole given structure and nutrient by trapped grains of minerals. It's a sustainable system in miniature, one where existence at base can be thought of as reciprocal rather than competitive.

And there are other example, as well, in pre-contact and post-contact societies.

Many (most) people (anthropocentrism) see themselves as somehow separate or superior to other animals, and they are not.

.

Maybe you aren't, but I am.

Maybe you aren't, but I am.

Well, I'm happy for you. But I have to ask....

How so?

If you don't think your life, your emotion, creativity, etc aren't superior to a fieldmouse, who am I to disagree with you? Hell, chop yourself into catfood, equal it all out.

If you don't think your life, your emotion, creativity, etc aren't superior to a fieldmouse, who am I to disagree with you? Hell, chop yourself into catfood, equal it all out.

Superior? Maybe so. Maybe not. That's a human term and value system you are projecting on to the fieldmouse, who (for as far as we know) is perfectly satisfied with its existence.

The fieldmouse can live anywhere and doesn't pay rent. He doesn't have to deal with divorce, the IRS, drive by shootings and maintaining an expensive residence. He just gathers his food and keeps a watchful eye for snakes and hawks and spends his or her days running about and making other fieldmice. So, maybe the fieldmouse has the "superior" existence.

I used to think as you do, but my point is this. The fieldmouse and all species, including humans, all play important roles in an ecosystem. In the world of biology, no species is more or less important than another. This concept of "superiority" is a construct of the Judeo-Christian world and its theory of man being the only species created in the image of god, a belief that has contributed heavily to species extinction.

Folks can believe, based on faith alone, these sorts of stories, but the equality of species in an ecosystem is rooted in scientific fact.