Comment on [deleted]
mhague@lemmy.world 4 months agoIt’s because cigarettes are addicting and so when someone harming themselves says not to do it, it makes sense.
Someone proclaiming the virtues of simple living but the way they got there is unobtainable for anyone hearing the advice makes no sense.
They’re both hypocrites on the surface but only one survives scrutiny.
Rodrck@lemmy.world 4 months ago
How is living on a little patch of land in a shack and growing beans unobtainable? It was the 1800s. Way too many people are hung up on the idea that he lived on a lot of land belonging to a friend. He could have gone off into the remote woods very easily. I don’t see the big advantages or unobtainable nature in your argument.
It’s not like he was a YouTuber living in a mansion that his dad bought and was trying to sell you his book on real estate investing.
There’s nothing unobtainable about what he did or what he wrote about. Chris McCandless (though not the best example and definitely controversial) went out and had his adventure in the 1990s and did so without money.
Thoreau living on Emerson’s land was convenient but he didn’t win the lottery and it’s not unobtainable. There’s a homeless guy living in a cave in Baker, CA right now. He walks to town about once a week. I suppose his life is easy because he’s got a “free cave” on BLM land, right?
People are way too hung up on Thoreau’s supposed advantages and they are exaggerating them as well.