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.
The good news is, it took me nearly 20 years before I started taking hot showers for granted again. It really did make me very grateful for a lot of things.
But I’ve also had similar thoughts to you.
I watch a lot of hiking videos of the PCT etc as one day I’d like to walk it.
When I watch those videos, and when I see people on social media telling folks to “drop out of the system, be free.” I can’t help but wonder exactly who is going to prepare their dehydrated meal packs for them.
Absolutely nothing wrong with taking such trips, made me a better and more grateful person, but it’s not an alternative lifestyle.
This perspective reminds me that when people ask, oh you grow your own food and have food animals, it's like living off grid? their perspective is that farms get their input from the ground and sky, but this hasn't been true in centuries. there are many high-tech inputs for all types of modern farming, such as chemicals (even if they are organic chemicals), fuel, machinery, seeds, infrastructure, knowledge, financial instruments, and a market. in order to live off-grid, first you must invent the universe...
> in order to live off-grid, first you must invent the universe...
Nobody is reinventing the universe, they just want a buffer.
A buffer is a well made item that you can repair yourself, so you're not forced to purchase a replacement.
A buffer is a shoebox with a lifetime supply of your favorite shaving razor.
A buffer is a garden, a pantry of canned goods, a few hens to lay eggs for you.
Each of these buffers insulates the bearer from the effects of supply chain disruption or even unemployment. Walmart could be out of eggs and razors -- but you'll be fine for quite some time, even if you didn't incubate your own chicks or make the razors by hand.
> farms get their input from the ground and sky, but this hasn't been true in centuries
Yes, industrial scales require industrial inputs, but a few hens will happily yield you a few eggs a day while living off your garden scraps and the insects they scratch up. And their waste returns nutrients to the soil -- a boone for a garden.
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.
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].
Chief O'Brien is the underappreciated hero of Star Trek making Picard's lifestyle possible. I'm happy to see his hard work, often crawling on all fours in awkward spaces, got highlighted more in DS9.
Or in other words, there were no automatic maintenance machines in the Star Trek universe at the time, it was all handwork still. Manufacturing and food prep was done by machines which solves some part of it I suppose.
I think if you look closely it was just hidden behind various structures, like e.g. hiring seasonal workers from abroad, housing them in your own (substandard) buildings, and cutting their wages by the amount of rent that you charge so their take-home is well below minimum wage. But they tolerate it because it's still better pay than they can get in their home country.
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.
> Criticizing "hedonism" is its own kind of hedonism
It's like kink-shaming being someone's actual kink.
Criticizing "hedonism" is its own kind of hedonism because you are overindulging yourself in your own sense of pride and smugness for "being better than everyone else"
Not that the author of TFA is doing this, but claiming that you have overcome materialism while at the same time posting about it on instagram with your latest iphone, recording yourself on insta360 cameras, with your apple watch-recorded heart-rate superimposed on your videos is a bit silly.
Poor societies are perfectly capable of criticizing hedonism. I don't see what's luxurious about criticizing the many examples of absurd resource waste through luxury good consumption.
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.