Your fictional country is China.
http://www.bis.org/publ/work312.htm
All 3 sectors of the economy (consumers, business, government) save 50% of their income.
If China stopped exporting, half of them could take turns working right there and only produce for domestic consumption. This would meet domestic consumption demand with 50% unemployment. Not bad!
Right now, they're all working and exporting their 50% surplus to the US which gives them a lock on the US economy. Sure the US can inflate its way out of it but it'll hurt itself quite a bit in the process. It's a bit like cancer treatments---the drugs are really hurting all cells; you just try to make them hurt some cells more than others.
A country with a 75% savings rate and exclusively domestic production would only need a quarter of the workforce compared to a country with a 0% savings rate. If such a country doesn't have geopolitical ambitions it's just a matter of figuring out who works at which time. The financial system will do this job just fine.
Would a random ERE country get run over? As far as I see, not if it has nukes. One of the major reason we (in the western world) don't want other countries to have nukes is not so much to keep crazy people from getting them but to avoid not being able to pressure governments we disagree with with military force---of course they're crazy when we disagree with them; or at least psychotic is the official story (and sometimes it may even be true). The reason is that nuclear war is simply not kosher even though a limited one won't be much different from a conventional war.
But I think the power question is very relevant. Especially inside the borders. If ERE became popular and personal "sovereignty" became popular rather than the labor serfdom which is popular now in an almost sublimical way (imagine Medieval peasants arguing between themselves what would happen if a good fraction of them stopped growing food ... everybody would starve... well today, about 2% of the population works in farming, so there).
Right now, we have some high ninety percent of the population working for a megarich super-minority paying loads of interest and profits to a small group of people. Where's the justice in that? Well, it's a social contract that's for sure.
I think what this all boils down to is which social contract you want to uphold. I definitely do not believe in the contract that says I must be an employee or otherwise become dependent on others for my livelihood.
Yes, I can totally understand how those who are dependent would be threatened if more people did become independent. Now, whose problem is that ultimately---not mine. That's actually a weakness in the current system, not in the ERE system.
Keep in mind that the ERE dependence on investments is minor at best and by chapter 7 in the book, it doesn't even need to be there---you could replace investments with a part time job instead and go ERE right now.
Ethics of ERE
Wow Jacob!
You summed that up way better than I ever could without going on tangents. I would have gone off on how an ERE currency is irrelevant because at the end of the day an ERE country would fund most new business.
I just hope China never decides that they are an ERE country or they might decide to say the US $ is not worth anything (since it appears a lot our size is debt related) and make everything for themselves...much like an ERE country might try?
You summed that up way better than I ever could without going on tangents. I would have gone off on how an ERE currency is irrelevant because at the end of the day an ERE country would fund most new business.
I just hope China never decides that they are an ERE country or they might decide to say the US $ is not worth anything (since it appears a lot our size is debt related) and make everything for themselves...much like an ERE country might try?
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
-
MichaelAndrewLo
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:59 pm
- Contact:
This I think sums up a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei9iLjNpFmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbvKrH-GC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei9iLjNpFmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbvKrH-GC4
-
MichaelAndrewLo
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:59 pm
- Contact:
I give a lot of credence to Richard Dawkins' theories about morality... "The Selfish Gene". Morality in general is (subconsciously) rooted in the understanding that a when it society is willing to act in general accordance with an agreed upon system of morals, it will be generally in the best interest of the members of that society. My culture finds murder immoral, and I'm less likely to be killed. I'm not saying there is not a fragment of moral absolutism in the world, but I think this is generally a big driver. I think religions are derived from this.
So playing devil's advocate in regard to ERE, I think this is where one could make a case against any 'morality' of it. If one subscribed to this as the definition of morality, than I'd argue that an ERE lifestyle is not in the best interest furthering a powerful and technically advanced (for defence and health care) society.
I think @slacker's post is most in line with my thoughts. Such a complete ERE society would not survive. That's what the inhabitants of the "New World" were. I don't see China as an example of the ERE many of us are promoting... few would argue that America is grossly overconsuming and the Chinese probably subscribe more to a lot of the lifestyle ideas that we promote as ERE's. That said, they are not retiring at 30 to enjoy reading or travel. Joseph's response about @slacker's example civilization being able to survive with Nukes. That's very true, but the point I would make is that an ERE society would never have mastered nuclear technology.
Such a society would not have (or would be far far behind other societies) artificial hearts, organ transplants, penicillin, nuclear power, space flight, microwave popcorn. One can argue the value of any of a number of those things - but I think it would be difficult to argue that an ERE society for the past 100 years would have a shorter lifespan and would have been conquered by another.
That said, I think there are SOOOO many people so eager for power and to push society in those directions, that I don't feel it is any concern. If we just landed on the Mayflower, I may answer differently.
So playing devil's advocate in regard to ERE, I think this is where one could make a case against any 'morality' of it. If one subscribed to this as the definition of morality, than I'd argue that an ERE lifestyle is not in the best interest furthering a powerful and technically advanced (for defence and health care) society.
I think @slacker's post is most in line with my thoughts. Such a complete ERE society would not survive. That's what the inhabitants of the "New World" were. I don't see China as an example of the ERE many of us are promoting... few would argue that America is grossly overconsuming and the Chinese probably subscribe more to a lot of the lifestyle ideas that we promote as ERE's. That said, they are not retiring at 30 to enjoy reading or travel. Joseph's response about @slacker's example civilization being able to survive with Nukes. That's very true, but the point I would make is that an ERE society would never have mastered nuclear technology.
Such a society would not have (or would be far far behind other societies) artificial hearts, organ transplants, penicillin, nuclear power, space flight, microwave popcorn. One can argue the value of any of a number of those things - but I think it would be difficult to argue that an ERE society for the past 100 years would have a shorter lifespan and would have been conquered by another.
That said, I think there are SOOOO many people so eager for power and to push society in those directions, that I don't feel it is any concern. If we just landed on the Mayflower, I may answer differently.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I still don't understand why some of you guys think that cutting away excess consumerism will eliminate key technologies.
Also, what's ignored is what freeing up 30 years of self-interested productivity will do for society. Not everybody will sit and do nothing. How many ideas go unseen because some programmer needs to spend most of his time developing a better shopping cart or annoying popup ads just so he can fill his house with stuff he never uses?
Wouldn't it stand to reason, that if demand for consumer junk went down, maybe people would aim higher rather than lower? Am I deluding myself here? Are people really that bad?
Keep in mind that many of the scientific achievements of the 16th-19th century actually came from people who were ERE. If Darwin hadn't been ERE and free to go on expeditions, how long would we have had to wait for evolution to be summarized. Progress is not strictly predicated on people being employed in jobs. The theories of special relativity, photons, and Brownian motion was essentially developed in Einstein's spare time. What if he had had more of it?
Also, what's ignored is what freeing up 30 years of self-interested productivity will do for society. Not everybody will sit and do nothing. How many ideas go unseen because some programmer needs to spend most of his time developing a better shopping cart or annoying popup ads just so he can fill his house with stuff he never uses?
Wouldn't it stand to reason, that if demand for consumer junk went down, maybe people would aim higher rather than lower? Am I deluding myself here? Are people really that bad?
Keep in mind that many of the scientific achievements of the 16th-19th century actually came from people who were ERE. If Darwin hadn't been ERE and free to go on expeditions, how long would we have had to wait for evolution to be summarized. Progress is not strictly predicated on people being employed in jobs. The theories of special relativity, photons, and Brownian motion was essentially developed in Einstein's spare time. What if he had had more of it?
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
> Wouldn't it stand to reason, that if demand for
> consumer junk went down, maybe people would aim
> higher rather than lower? Am I deluding myself
> here?
I'm with you, Jacob. Humanity makes the most progress when they are free to pursue their ideas. Sometimes that requires considerable organization (spaceflight) and sometimes it just requires a lot of curiousity (Goddard refining rockets into a useful technology).
Artificial hearts didn't require massive technology (it's just a friggin' pump, ya know!). Penicillin was discovered by accident, by someone who was ERE (inheiritance) while doing other interesting research. Even something as stupendous as the polio vaccine was the result of one individual having the drive needed to marry matrix algebra with biotechnology to search a large solution space.
> consumer junk went down, maybe people would aim
> higher rather than lower? Am I deluding myself
> here?
I'm with you, Jacob. Humanity makes the most progress when they are free to pursue their ideas. Sometimes that requires considerable organization (spaceflight) and sometimes it just requires a lot of curiousity (Goddard refining rockets into a useful technology).
Artificial hearts didn't require massive technology (it's just a friggin' pump, ya know!). Penicillin was discovered by accident, by someone who was ERE (inheiritance) while doing other interesting research. Even something as stupendous as the polio vaccine was the result of one individual having the drive needed to marry matrix algebra with biotechnology to search a large solution space.
"I still don't understand why some of you guys think that cutting away excess consumerism will eliminate key technologies."
One of the most important insights on this thread.
Reminds me of Kuhn's thesis in Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Important knowledge, insights, innovations, etc. do not grow in a linear, accumulative fashion. The really important stuff are paradigm shifts. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that ERE lifestyle prohibits innovative thoughts--in fact, as has been stated--the opposite is true.
One of the most important insights on this thread.
Reminds me of Kuhn's thesis in Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Important knowledge, insights, innovations, etc. do not grow in a linear, accumulative fashion. The really important stuff are paradigm shifts. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that ERE lifestyle prohibits innovative thoughts--in fact, as has been stated--the opposite is true.
"I still don't understand why some of you guys think that cutting away excess consumerism will eliminate key technologies."
I love the replies by George TOO and Dienekes. I'd add a fairly recent example, Chester Carlson, the inventor of xerography, which he did pretty much out of thin air (no real scientific/engineering predicate) who lived about as non-consumerist a life as one could (his ambition was to die a poor man). The xerox machine was invented in his apartment kitchen, and later a room he rented in a building owned by his mother-in-law. For well over 10 years he couldn't interest any companies in the product.
I love the replies by George TOO and Dienekes. I'd add a fairly recent example, Chester Carlson, the inventor of xerography, which he did pretty much out of thin air (no real scientific/engineering predicate) who lived about as non-consumerist a life as one could (his ambition was to die a poor man). The xerox machine was invented in his apartment kitchen, and later a room he rented in a building owned by his mother-in-law. For well over 10 years he couldn't interest any companies in the product.
@Jacob,
> Wouldn't it stand to reason, that if demand for
> consumer junk went down, maybe people would aim
> higher rather than lower? Am I deluding myself
> here? Are people really that bad?
Great post. I agree (Hold on, that's only for the blog, right?
)
I might sound bellicose, but the elephant in the room is that as a society we're in retrograde and refuse to accept it! In this context I like to refer to part of the comment you left in my blog earlier....
science has made society rich enough for a substantial number of people to be wholly ignorant of science and technology. Food comes from the supermarket, money comes out of a slit in the wall after inserting a plastic card, and food is then cooked by magic microwaves after pressing a few buttons through a process than 95% of the population probably can't explain.
In this connection I recall that while growing up I was always asking "Why", "How". School broke me down to 'shut up, Mr. Chatterbox' but my parents (bless them) would encourage to maintain this curiosity privately at least and try to get some book or the other when they couldn't answer me.
And by learning about the science and the background of the science I too have come to realise like you that most important life saving discoveries and epiphanies came while those scientists were freed up from the drudgery of having to "work for a living"...
Ronald Ross: Benefactors freed him up from "empire duties" in Bangalore, built him a house with a lab, gave him a free servant to pursue his then considered 'harebrained' ideas on malaria. He's still held in good esteem in India.
Discovery of insulin: McLeod allowed access to Banting and Best to use his labs in Summer for *free*, then actually paid them and another one called Collip salaries from his own grant to sustain them to continue their then considered 'harebrained' theories on the islets of langerhans. And the chief conspirators sold their entire research to University of Toronto for one dollar! I don't know how much the University sold it to Bayer for
Another trivia: John Logie Baird couldn't have invented the Television if a nurse in a hospital hadn't sympathised with him and supported him with money, a place to live and all other expenses through thick and thin. She helped with every one of his endeavours and the nurse and John eventually became a married couple (Awww, shucks!). (despite my misgivings about TV and its role today I still think the personal History is worth knowing)
These are just some examples.
The more people free themselves from the chore of being a cog on the wheel, the more curious they become about the beauty and variety of their own existence...... and discover the true meaning of this Bill Watterson book title "There's Treasure Everywhere". I consider the wisdom gained in trying to learn about growing vegetables and herbs successfully, infinitely higher than the same time I spent during the days being known as 'that guy in the corner cubicle'! Reality, I am much poorer now than I was when I was an office dweeb, but I am much much...etc more happier now than I was then... And here's the kicker: no one can take that happiness away from me now as they could if I had continued to be the 'victim' of market forces. OK, I'm going to cool it now.
I have always liked this Zen quote from the book Mastery by Leonard, (which wasn't so well recived at Ribbonfarm as the interpretation was subject to debate, but I hope ERE readers are more discerning ):
Actually, the essence of boredom is to be found in the obsessive search for novelty. Satisfaction lies in mindful repetition, the discovery of endless richness in subtle variations on familiar themes.
> Wouldn't it stand to reason, that if demand for
> consumer junk went down, maybe people would aim
> higher rather than lower? Am I deluding myself
> here? Are people really that bad?
Great post. I agree (Hold on, that's only for the blog, right?
)I might sound bellicose, but the elephant in the room is that as a society we're in retrograde and refuse to accept it! In this context I like to refer to part of the comment you left in my blog earlier....
science has made society rich enough for a substantial number of people to be wholly ignorant of science and technology. Food comes from the supermarket, money comes out of a slit in the wall after inserting a plastic card, and food is then cooked by magic microwaves after pressing a few buttons through a process than 95% of the population probably can't explain.
In this connection I recall that while growing up I was always asking "Why", "How". School broke me down to 'shut up, Mr. Chatterbox' but my parents (bless them) would encourage to maintain this curiosity privately at least and try to get some book or the other when they couldn't answer me.
And by learning about the science and the background of the science I too have come to realise like you that most important life saving discoveries and epiphanies came while those scientists were freed up from the drudgery of having to "work for a living"...
Ronald Ross: Benefactors freed him up from "empire duties" in Bangalore, built him a house with a lab, gave him a free servant to pursue his then considered 'harebrained' ideas on malaria. He's still held in good esteem in India.
Discovery of insulin: McLeod allowed access to Banting and Best to use his labs in Summer for *free*, then actually paid them and another one called Collip salaries from his own grant to sustain them to continue their then considered 'harebrained' theories on the islets of langerhans. And the chief conspirators sold their entire research to University of Toronto for one dollar! I don't know how much the University sold it to Bayer for
Another trivia: John Logie Baird couldn't have invented the Television if a nurse in a hospital hadn't sympathised with him and supported him with money, a place to live and all other expenses through thick and thin. She helped with every one of his endeavours and the nurse and John eventually became a married couple (Awww, shucks!). (despite my misgivings about TV and its role today I still think the personal History is worth knowing)
These are just some examples.
The more people free themselves from the chore of being a cog on the wheel, the more curious they become about the beauty and variety of their own existence...... and discover the true meaning of this Bill Watterson book title "There's Treasure Everywhere". I consider the wisdom gained in trying to learn about growing vegetables and herbs successfully, infinitely higher than the same time I spent during the days being known as 'that guy in the corner cubicle'! Reality, I am much poorer now than I was when I was an office dweeb, but I am much much...etc more happier now than I was then... And here's the kicker: no one can take that happiness away from me now as they could if I had continued to be the 'victim' of market forces. OK, I'm going to cool it now.
I have always liked this Zen quote from the book Mastery by Leonard, (which wasn't so well recived at Ribbonfarm as the interpretation was subject to debate, but I hope ERE readers are more discerning
):Actually, the essence of boredom is to be found in the obsessive search for novelty. Satisfaction lies in mindful repetition, the discovery of endless richness in subtle variations on familiar themes.
I have truly enjoyed the evolution of this thread and happy to see that some of the moral obligations have been "solved" and we are to more productive ideals. Namely, freedom inspired creativity. The examples given above are relevant and will spur me to compare great inventors and thinkers ERE likeness as I consider their achievements. The last few posts allowed some reflection and application to my own situation
When I did my research and clinical work on "the pump" I was in a much different spot than I was when I started my ERE laden reformation from consumerism a few months ago. We lived somewhat meagerly, our kids did not demand much, and we simply did not have tremendous outside obligation. I worked in a large group of providers that were not motivated to do the extra, often unpaid tasks associated with being on "the pump" team. Reliving this situation made me realize that I had freedom then that I do not have now as currently every line on the calendar is filled. Freedom indirectly fueled my contributions to a huge technological breakthrough. (The predictable, precision pump is not the hard part. Mating the pump with an already ravaged, unpredictable human body was the hard part. Creating the art form that could not yet be read about was and likely will be the most productive professional contribution in health that I will make. (And again "the pump" itself was not the lasting component but the trickle down technology applied to more common situations was the real victory)) Not so oddly, when this stimulation ended, my personal hell of out of control consumerism and associated problems began.
Freedom allowed me to pursue complex ideas that I could not tackle now. What little freedom I have currently, I spend time critically thinking and and attempting to get things turned around.
@ jacob. Agree with your point concerning ERE not restricting key technologies. @ georgeTOO, I enjoy your insights and your recent post is cause for this post. Lessening consumerism will not inhibit key technologies. I think it would allow advancement.
@ffjeff your analogy to social programs is certainly applicable. @ Surio I have always been a question asker too. Often, to my own detriment. @b There will always be different groupings of those who are accepting and those who are willing to risk change and/or development. There are numerous wild animals on this forum. Knowing I have the courage to create freedom is inspiring on a daily basis.
When I did my research and clinical work on "the pump" I was in a much different spot than I was when I started my ERE laden reformation from consumerism a few months ago. We lived somewhat meagerly, our kids did not demand much, and we simply did not have tremendous outside obligation. I worked in a large group of providers that were not motivated to do the extra, often unpaid tasks associated with being on "the pump" team. Reliving this situation made me realize that I had freedom then that I do not have now as currently every line on the calendar is filled. Freedom indirectly fueled my contributions to a huge technological breakthrough. (The predictable, precision pump is not the hard part. Mating the pump with an already ravaged, unpredictable human body was the hard part. Creating the art form that could not yet be read about was and likely will be the most productive professional contribution in health that I will make. (And again "the pump" itself was not the lasting component but the trickle down technology applied to more common situations was the real victory)) Not so oddly, when this stimulation ended, my personal hell of out of control consumerism and associated problems began.
Freedom allowed me to pursue complex ideas that I could not tackle now. What little freedom I have currently, I spend time critically thinking and and attempting to get things turned around.
@ jacob. Agree with your point concerning ERE not restricting key technologies. @ georgeTOO, I enjoy your insights and your recent post is cause for this post. Lessening consumerism will not inhibit key technologies. I think it would allow advancement.
@ffjeff your analogy to social programs is certainly applicable. @ Surio I have always been a question asker too. Often, to my own detriment. @b There will always be different groupings of those who are accepting and those who are willing to risk change and/or development. There are numerous wild animals on this forum. Knowing I have the courage to create freedom is inspiring on a daily basis.
I agree with a number of people's point that mental freedom and creativity are linked. I can even feel it to some degree just being confident in my short term plans - being able to detach myself more from my day to day job when I go home.
I think this thread would actually be more interesting if we could assume that we as a society could scale back our rampant consumerism and take that out of the equation. I think everyone that has any interest in this forum feels similarly about that - even if to varying degrees. To me, the backlash against consumerism does not equate to ERE (although it's obviously pivotal if you are caught up in it).
I'm a pretty well moderated consumer, and as such, plan to retire about 25 years earlier than a typical American. That is what ERE is to me. Retire... not research a cure for cancer in my spare time. I could have this same consumer mindset, but continue to work for those 25 years... maybe saving more, or maybe working somewhere for less (or free) that I'd be free to pursue my own ideas. I could simply donate 40 hours a week helping cancer researchers or manufacturing compressor blades for F-22 Raptors. That is not my plan, and is not what I consider ERE.
Surio's brought up a number of interesting examples highlighting the creativity brought about by freedom from constraints. The difficulty is that in those examples, someone was footing the bill behind the scenes... "benefactors", "free lab", "his own grant", "supported him with money". Einstein did not have an epiphany then go out and build a bomb and a nuclear reactor in his garage the next weekend. Creative ideas or paradigm shifts are not always the same as execution and implementation of those ideas.
So I think all the above are valid and true thoughts, but I still find myself mired in the what I see as the reality of execution within a society. As players in that society, assuming you think there is a need for some specific form of progress in that society (non consumerist), then I feel it's arguable that an ERE'er may not be playing their part. Yes the artificial heart is just a pump, but as @sshawn points out, putting it into practice is the hard part.
I also still believe that defense of a society is still at issue. Man can be a nasty beast by nature, and as awful as war is, you don't need to instigate it to be drawn into it. Yes, we arguably have far too much armament and use it unwisely... but my argument is in principal. What will be the long term effect of every ERE'er that is not working as hard as a their potential enemy? And I don't mean writing advertising software so they can afford to buy Snackables and HDTV's....
I think this thread would actually be more interesting if we could assume that we as a society could scale back our rampant consumerism and take that out of the equation. I think everyone that has any interest in this forum feels similarly about that - even if to varying degrees. To me, the backlash against consumerism does not equate to ERE (although it's obviously pivotal if you are caught up in it).
I'm a pretty well moderated consumer, and as such, plan to retire about 25 years earlier than a typical American. That is what ERE is to me. Retire... not research a cure for cancer in my spare time. I could have this same consumer mindset, but continue to work for those 25 years... maybe saving more, or maybe working somewhere for less (or free) that I'd be free to pursue my own ideas. I could simply donate 40 hours a week helping cancer researchers or manufacturing compressor blades for F-22 Raptors. That is not my plan, and is not what I consider ERE.
Surio's brought up a number of interesting examples highlighting the creativity brought about by freedom from constraints. The difficulty is that in those examples, someone was footing the bill behind the scenes... "benefactors", "free lab", "his own grant", "supported him with money". Einstein did not have an epiphany then go out and build a bomb and a nuclear reactor in his garage the next weekend. Creative ideas or paradigm shifts are not always the same as execution and implementation of those ideas.
So I think all the above are valid and true thoughts, but I still find myself mired in the what I see as the reality of execution within a society. As players in that society, assuming you think there is a need for some specific form of progress in that society (non consumerist), then I feel it's arguable that an ERE'er may not be playing their part. Yes the artificial heart is just a pump, but as @sshawn points out, putting it into practice is the hard part.
I also still believe that defense of a society is still at issue. Man can be a nasty beast by nature, and as awful as war is, you don't need to instigate it to be drawn into it. Yes, we arguably have far too much armament and use it unwisely... but my argument is in principal. What will be the long term effect of every ERE'er that is not working as hard as a their potential enemy? And I don't mean writing advertising software so they can afford to buy Snackables and HDTV's....
@chilly,
My choice of examples were driven by a need to address two thread responses with a single one.
1. Jacob:
> Keep in mind that many of the scientific
> achievements of the 16th-19th century actually
> came from people who were ERE. (*)
(*) Here, I go with ERE->FI, inheritence and grants included and not necessarily having to slug it and live off 3%. (Darwin)
2. firefighterjeff:
> The assumption that people will use unhindered
> free time for the good of society or even
> themselves is naive.
I didn't think Jeff is wrong. But he was only partly right. That's why I didn't explicitly call him out in my response. I did meant to leave some examples that disproved that above point. People will choose to use unhindered time for good.
So, I specifically included examples where people's ER/FI modes weren't exactly like most of us here, but who then went on to live their lives as Jacob pointed out.
I thought the examples will spell out these points for themselves. Oh Well!
chilly, I hope these other examples should please you
James Allen -> As a man thinketh fame:
Allen's father had hoped to settle in the United States (1879), but was robbed and murdered before he could send for his family. This financial crisis forced James to leave school at fifteen. He eventually became a private secretary, a position that would be called administrative assistant today. He worked in this capacity for several British manufacturers until 1902, when he decided to move to Ilfracombe, small coastal town to devote all his time to writing.
He strove to live the ideal life described by Count Leo Tolstoy -- the life of voluntary poverty, manual labor and ascetic self-discipline. Allen sought to improve himself, be happy, and master all of the virtues.
His day began with a predawn walk up to the Cairn, a stony spot on the hillside overlooking his home and the sea. He would remain there for an hour in meditation. Then he would return to the house and spend the morning writing. The afternoons were devoted to gardening, a pastime he enjoyed. His evenings were spent in conversation with those who were interested in his work.
He wrote 19 book in 9 years and died in 1912, 9 years later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
Never recieved handouts, but chose to live a life very much within his means and always worked for the betterment of mankind. He didn't choose to indulge in the "Jerry Springer" of his times, alcoholism/moonshine, prostitution etc., in spite of all his scarring experiences (he witnessed a lynching of a black man)
A small sample set, and there are more, but I hope you understand.
HTH,
Surio.
My choice of examples were driven by a need to address two thread responses with a single one.
1. Jacob:
> Keep in mind that many of the scientific
> achievements of the 16th-19th century actually
> came from people who were ERE. (*)
(*) Here, I go with ERE->FI, inheritence and grants included and not necessarily having to slug it and live off 3%. (Darwin)
2. firefighterjeff:
> The assumption that people will use unhindered
> free time for the good of society or even
> themselves is naive.
I didn't think Jeff is wrong. But he was only partly right. That's why I didn't explicitly call him out in my response. I did meant to leave some examples that disproved that above point. People will choose to use unhindered time for good.
So, I specifically included examples where people's ER/FI modes weren't exactly like most of us here, but who then went on to live their lives as Jacob pointed out.
I thought the examples will spell out these points for themselves. Oh Well!
chilly, I hope these other examples should please you
James Allen -> As a man thinketh fame:
Allen's father had hoped to settle in the United States (1879), but was robbed and murdered before he could send for his family. This financial crisis forced James to leave school at fifteen. He eventually became a private secretary, a position that would be called administrative assistant today. He worked in this capacity for several British manufacturers until 1902, when he decided to move to Ilfracombe, small coastal town to devote all his time to writing.
He strove to live the ideal life described by Count Leo Tolstoy -- the life of voluntary poverty, manual labor and ascetic self-discipline. Allen sought to improve himself, be happy, and master all of the virtues.
His day began with a predawn walk up to the Cairn, a stony spot on the hillside overlooking his home and the sea. He would remain there for an hour in meditation. Then he would return to the house and spend the morning writing. The afternoons were devoted to gardening, a pastime he enjoyed. His evenings were spent in conversation with those who were interested in his work.
He wrote 19 book in 9 years and died in 1912, 9 years later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
Never recieved handouts, but chose to live a life very much within his means and always worked for the betterment of mankind. He didn't choose to indulge in the "Jerry Springer" of his times, alcoholism/moonshine, prostitution etc., in spite of all his scarring experiences (he witnessed a lynching of a black man)
A small sample set, and there are more, but I hope you understand.
HTH,
Surio.