Stories and Anecdotes about Nonconsumers/howlies

[Tropicalia]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bq0P8hwS8qI

Anne Donath has lived in this tiny 4x4 meter wooden house for ~30yrs. No electricity or running water. Pays a minimal amount for drinking water and uses a cistern in the garden for other needs. Uses a wood stove for cooking and heating the home. Uses an earth cellar. Portable solar panel to charge power bank for cell phone charging and bedside lamp.

Her life seems so serene and pleasant to me. And she appears quite fit and energetic for her age. Simple living can be such a good thing for the health of the body and the mind.

“The 74-year-old lives an extremely frugal, sustainable and resource-conserving life, even though that wasn't her main motivation at all. Nor does she lead her lifestyle out of any political, religious or ideological conviction. ‘I see all of life as an experiment. What is good for me, I continue to do. If something no longer suits me, I will change it.’.”

[Jean]

I missed the wild camping discussion.
I did a lot of unorganised camping in europe, north america and some in kyrgizstan.
In north america, in the west, you can camp on a lot of land freely, altough many spot that you can acccess vy car have some interdiction.
In the east, outside of some areas, it was much more difficult to find some where i was alowed to camp, but it's doable.
The rate of weird encounter was really high on my great lakes and great plain trip. I was probably never in danger, but felt very unconfortable numerous times.

In europe, their are big difference beetween places.
It's mostly allowed in scandinavia, even on private property. Allowed on public land in pl sk cz and the baltics, tolerated everywhere else, I never got in trouble anywhere.
But a very good rule is to always try to not disturb peoples, which is very similar to be stealthy.

Main difference beetween europe an na, is that there are much more crazy people roaming in the usa, and people are much more defensive of their private land in the us than in europe.
So overall, i feel much more confortable camping in europe than in the us, but it was ok in the us too.

[white belt]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bq0P8hwS8qI

Anne Donath has lived in this tiny 4x4 meter wooden house for ~30yrs. No electricity or running water. Pays a minimal amount for drinking water and uses a cistern in the garden for other needs. Uses a wood stove for cooking and heating the home. Uses an earth cellar. Portable solar panel to charge power bank for cell phone charging and bedside lamp.

Her life seems so serene and pleasant to me. And she appears quite fit and energetic for her age. Simple living can be such a good thing for the health of the body and the mind.

Very charming cottage in the woods vibe, when in reality it's on a small parcel with other houses nearby. Best of both worlds! Someday maybe ADU zoning laws will relax in my region of the USA.

[7Wannabe5]

Happened upon this article in The Guardian. Jo Nemeth, inspired by Mark Boyle and others, has created a virtually money free lifestyle woven into her social community. Very good example of what I might call the semi-modular, semi-dispersed Lentil Mama or Radical Homemaker model. I agree with her comment about feeling more secure than when she was earning money. A good deal of the strategy of the Capitalist/Consumerist enterprise/paradigm involves dividing and conquering us up into solo economic units so that each of us needs to individually replicate and fulfill each and every possible need/want and domestic function on our own. You end up with a society spewing waste at its boundaries and experiencing an epidemic of loneliness at its core. There's some household ratio, maybe approximating 300 square ft. per human and 1 kitchen sink and garden per 6 humans, which can definitely serve to reduce a level of labor/resource waste in a manner that we don't as often address on this forum.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... as-earning

Unfortunately, I think that following the path to achieve total financial independence as an individual as first order of business can tend towards inhibiting community solutions, because it precludes options in which you might be better suited as either someone contributing more domestically or someone contributing more financially. For example, one human might be perfectly content to provide all the cash flow an extremely frugal household needs by working part-time at the needful community task of fire-fighter or math tutor and the other human might be perfectly content to perform the majority of the household eco-system maintenance tasks, and years spent by both of them working full-time at less than desirable jobs to individually save up large funds might actually make it less likely for them to achieve a joint/household/community happier and less wasteful solution. IOW, the practice of FIRE is to some extent towards training yourself away from co-operative living and then also tends towards setting the barrier to entry too high. For example, what if Day 1 of Challenge was "Find free housing in exchange for your domestic and/or social skills?" Does eventually having $200,000 invested to cover $600/month in shelter expenses make it more or less likely that you will attempt the "free housing for skills" experiment? Etc. etc.

Architectural design for group living that takes better note of human psychology, as in "A Pattern Language" could also be quite helpful. Just stating that 350 square ft. per human is reasonable does not take into account the rooms or spaces we need to be afforded within this square footage, such as "room of one's own", "couple space", "family space", "toddler cubby", "community interface", "work-shop", etc. If a Gen-Z young adult who was living for free in spacious beyond 350 square ft/human home owned by his parents could become skillful about improving the psychological use of space, he could even possibly sub-divide his basement lair to create an additional rental unit.

One important thing I have learned is that the main problem humans usually have in sharing space and facilities with others is when they perceive an other occupying the space as a negative force on their ability to climb Maslow's Hierarchy. So, all you have to do to be the most welcomed houseguest or housemate ever is to do the opposite. For example, one of the reasons why Lentil Baby moneyless lifestyle is even easier to achieve than Lentil Mama moneyless lifestyle is that Sex is a pretty basic need for most humans and if you are living with somebody and you are not providing them with sex or you are not providing them with all of the sort of sex that they want (for example, simply having sex with other humans in addition to you) then it is likely that you are making it more difficult for them to have sex by limiting their ability to create and maintain appropriate Couple Space. Generally, if you can pro-actively figure out how to at least not interfere with housemate's sexual plans and you develop a few simple practices such as always tidying the kitchen and making coffee in the morning, majority of humans are unlikely to object to your continued presence, but this non-intrusive slacker minimum is not likely to be enough of a contribution to garner a true room of your own gratis. So, experimenting with the $400/month shelter expense suggestion in ERE Makeover in the form of 20 hrs. of domestic tasks at theoretical wage of $20/hour might be a good starting point. Just center yourself on the fact that since studies have shown that human happiness is maximized at 350 square ft./human, there must be something(s) you could do that would make a human currently occupying 700 square ft. or more space by themselves happier and/or spend less outside of domestic boundaries than they know how to make themselves, etc. for larger spaces, larger households. IOW, the fact that they are currently occupying that much space is a sign of social or skill failure, their wasteful "under-occupation of shelter" is directly analogous to somebody continuously putting valuable stuff out on the curb.

[white belt]

Architectural design for group living that takes better note of human psychology, as in "A Pattern Language" could also be quite helpful. Just stating that 350 square ft. per human is reasonable does not take into account the rooms or spaces we need to be afforded within this square footage, such as "room of one's own", "couple space", "family space", "toddler cubby", "community interface", "work-shop", etc. If a Gen-Z young adult who was living for free in spacious beyond 350 square ft/human home owned by his parents could become skillful about improving the psychological use of space, he could even possibly sub-divide his basement lair to create an additional rental unit.

One important thing I have learned is that the main problem humans usually have in sharing space and facilities with others is when they perceive an other occupying the space as a negative force on their ability to climb Maslow's Hierarchy. [...] Just center yourself on the fact that since studies have shown that human happiness is maximized at 350 square ft./human, there must be something(s) you could do that would make a human currently occupying 700 square ft. or more space by themselves happier and/or spend less outside of domestic boundaries than they know how to make themselves, etc. for larger spaces, larger households. IOW, the fact that they are currently occupying that much space is a sign of social or skill failure, their wasteful "under-occupation of shelter" is directly analogous to somebody continuously putting valuable stuff out on the curb.

I agree with your first point about design being the key to make such arrangements work. DW's townhouse was the perfect layout for cohabitation because the 2 bedrooms were on the opposite sides of the 2nd floor. The house totaled 1800 sqft with 2 bedrooms, which was a little wonky as the layout could have fit 3 bedrooms but the builder opted for very large bedrooms. However, it meant that each person in their room with the door closed almost never heard anything in the rest of the house. This to me is critical for "room of one's own". The kitchen, dining room, living room, and outdoor patio on the ground floor were the shared communal space. I lived there for a month with DW and her roommate, so it definitely was doable to have 3 people living in the house, although that's still a "wasteful" 600 sqft per person. The reality is that the majority of USA housing stock is wasteful in terms of square footage.

From the time I entered the workforce, there were only 6 months out of the last ~9 years where I didn't live in a space that approximated 350 square ft/human. I lived with 2 roommates in a 3 bedroom house, then with 1 roommate in a 2 bedroom apartment, then by myself in a 2 bedroom apartment (the exception, although price was same as a 1 bedroom), then with 2 roommates in a 4 bedroom house, then by myself in a 300 sqft studio, then with 3 roommates in a 4 bedroom house, and now with DW in a 500 sqft 1 bedroom apartment. I will break the streak moving forward because the new house we bought is ~600 sqft per person. DW and I determined that our current 500 sqft apartment with no outdoor space was just too small for us. Intuitively this makes some sense since it's 100 ft less per person than optimal. I think if we were in a 700 sqft 2 bedroom apartment with some outdoor space, then we would have had a lot less friction this past year.

I haven't read the research but does 350 sqft include only finished spaces? Apartments are usually entirely finished, whereas my new house square footage doubles if I count the unfinished basement and detached garage. Those spaces might not be appropriate for bedrooms under the law, but they can be used for workshops, hobby spaces, storage, etc.

I understand your critique of the FIRE strategy to build up a stash first. However, temperament does play a factor. Let's be honest, the FIRE movement is (was?) dominated by INTJs and they are also well represented in ERE spaces. The co-housing arrangement you describe is like a nightmare scenario to most INTJs, who probably use up a lot of their social battery at work. The last thing they want to do is have to come home to a noisy and chaotic house with a bunch of roommates, which is why I'd guess that most of them pay for autonomy/solitude in the form of square footage once they get past their mid-20s. In fact, the only people I know still living with roommates in their 30s are those who live in HCOL areas and/or have low paying jobs. So I think there is definitely a social stigma associated with such things, more so with men because they don't want to be judged as lacking resources/drive by potential female suitors. I understand that there is a subset of frugal women who might not care, but they are not the majority.

The other thing I have noticed is that there are virtually no examples I have encountered in my life of monogamous couples cohabiting with other roommates. I'm sure it does happen, but my last landlord who ran a modern version of a boarding house had a strict rule against couples, I'm assuming because it caused unnecessary drama and headache. A trend I noticed in my life was roommates moving out to move in with significant others. One reason I got stuck solo in a 2 bedroom apartment for that period of time is because my roommate's girlfriend was not interested in sharing a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment with her boyfriend and a roommate. Given the number of childless couples that exist now and will likely grow in the future, I think it would be cool if it was more socially acceptable to have living arrangements with multiple couples mixed in with regular roommates. The reality is, everything in our society is structured towards the nuclear family, which is more and more becoming just the nuclear monogamous couple as birthrates plummet*. The housing market, cultural norms, zoning laws, etc haven't really kept up.

* = Also the increase in pet ownership makes cohabitation more difficult because the pet(s) and owners have to be comfortable with everyone and vice versa. You see how this quickly gets out of hand if each roommate has their own pet.

[7Wannabe5]

The reality is that the majority of USA housing stock is wasteful in terms of square footage.

For sure. The average housing square footage per capita in the U.S. was 242 sq. ft in 1920 and rose to 1023 sq. ft. per person by 2014. The 350 sq. ft. per person "happiness maximizing" level was achieved by the late 1950s. This trend is unlikely to subside due to hugely increasing trend for affluent humans to spend most of their adult lives single rather than living in a nuclear or extended family situation. Currently almost half of U.S. adults are single, and of those who are married, approximately half either have not (yet or ever) had children or are now empty nest with extended lifespan. This is a huge change from mid-20th century when the majority of households were of conventional nuclear family model. There is also a growing trend for affluent married couples to have separate bedrooms. Currently, 1 out of 4 married couples do not share a bedroom.

One thing I have noticed when watching Minimalism trend videos is that the minimalist human often goes from having too much stuff to having way to much square footage. The aesthetic is wasteful in the sense that it promotes the desire to have acreage of empty interior heated/cooled space to oneself. Kind of like getting what used to be the benefit derived from going outside into the open air without having to leave one's own domicile. IOW, reducing number-of-stuff owned does not force reducing square footage occupied/heated-cooled/maintained-with-materials, but reducing square footage occupied will to some extent force the reduction of number-of-stuff owned, and it might be argued that 350 sq ft of interior space stuffed with stuff is less wasteful than 1000 square ft. of interior space with empty, minimalist aesthetic. At least the "stuff" would tend towards somewhat insulating the space. Although, obviously, total flow-through of energy/materials, whether roofing shingles, natural gas, kitchen fixtures, fast fashion, toilet paper, streaming video, or decorative items, per square ft. would be the most relevant metric.

It's also important to note that because poverty level in the U.S. is mostly tied to shelter cost, over-occupation may tend towards increasing inequity. For example, as I have noted previously, one easy way to reduce household spending per human (and also household square footage per human)if you are a married couple with no kids (without increasing total global population) is to simply do something like adopt a 9 year old out of group-prison foster care system and/or allow a decrepit older relative to live with you.

The other thing I have noticed is that there are virtually no examples I have encountered in my life of monogamous couples cohabiting with other roommates.

Yes, and this is likely in part due to the correlation between monogamy and territoriality exhibited in many species. This is why I favor polyamory as a more peaceful solution, although it is not without its own difficulties in terms of the need for more modular "couple space" areas. OTOH, I don't think that the introverted desire for solitude/privacy is exactly akin to "territoriality." In terms of personality type, I think J might be more correlated with "territoriality" than I, because black/white thinking is more tuned into whether the spot of lawn where YOUR dog shat is MINE/YOURS, whereas P is more likely to vibe in the shades of gray realm of "shit happens." The E vs. I attached to the J would be more correlated with the volume/frequency of communication about the dog/shit event. Dunno.

I should also note that pet ownership, running business out of home, or similar will also increase square footage needed to maximize happy occupation. For example, I justified renting a 450 square ft apartment just for myself on the basis that I was using one room primarily for business purposes. I think 100 square ft was the addition for pet, but not each subsequent added pet. So, married couple with a dog= 800 square ft.

So I think there is definitely a social stigma associated with such things, more so with men because they don't want to be judged as lacking resources/drive by potential female suitors. I understand that there is a subset of frugal women who might not care, but they are not the majority.

My son was sharing a 2 bedroom approximately 800 square ft. seriously ugly apartment in a seriously ugly complex with a friend he's known since childhood and an ancient quite stinky dog (over 20 years old!) that his friend had owned since his early teens. The dog died, so now my son and his friend are finding different accommodations I predict this move will improve my son's dating prospects.

OTOH, maybe frugal woman are not the majority, but Robin Greenfield seems to have no difficulty with attracting radiantly beautiful women at Level Green or Green/Yellow. I mean, sure, females shop for "lifestyle/status" number one ( in long-term mode, in short-term mode they shop harder for "masculinity" and "looks", although they do consider these in long-term mode also) and males shop for "looks" number one (in short term mode they add "sexual availability" and in long-term mode they flip to "chastity"), but both genders also shop pretty hard for "intelligence" and "kindness." So, to the extent that "frugality" as manifested in shelter choice, etc, can be communicated as a combination of "intelligence" and "kindness" it will be attractive, whereas to the extent that "frugality' is communicated more like "lack of generosity of spirit" or "fearful, dirty hoarding", it will be unattractive.

[Stasher]

7Wannabe5 thank-you for such a simple and direct snap shot of why housing is costing us so much and also the costs to operate communities (water/sewer/power/roads) from the explosion in wastefulness from home size. Also of course the spiral of consumption that space creates and the energy inputs to maintain it. I often think this often in my community work and seeing impacts first hand on property taxes, homelessness, poverty and so on and so on.

[7Wannabe5]

@Stasher:

Good point about all the extra supportive services and infrastructure needed for all the under-occupied housing. It adds up to a whole lot of concrete and fewer trees. Also, as population levels go down in the future in affluent low-birth rate areas, there will be even more waste as all the under-occupied housing stock becomes unoccupied housing stock that nobody will be able to afford to maintain. Like the fat late mid-life phase clothing that ends up in the dumpster as flesh withers away to the bone with old age.

[white belt]

For example, as I have noted previously, one easy way to reduce household spending per human (and also household square footage per human)if you are a married couple with no kids (without increasing total global population) is to simply do something like adopt a 9 year old out of group-prison foster care system and/or allow a decrepit older relative to live with you.

My parents are a few years older than you but not yet entirely decrepit. I actually would like if they lived in an ADU or something similar near us. However, the new house isn't really laid out correctly for such a thing. Well actually, I could fit a single wide in my backyard if zoning laws allowed it. Quick google shows 2bed/1bath single wide available delivered for ~50k*, so tack on another conservative $50k for the foundation, install, some upgrades, extension of utilities across the backyard, etc and an ADU could be had for $100k! Market rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in my area is $1.6-1.8k. However, I have no delusions that I would ever be able to get zoning approval due to all of the variances required. My county doesn't have any guidelines for ADUs, although there are a few towns in the state that do at least mention them in their code. Heck my town still hasn't even gotten completely onboard with a backyard chicken ordinance despite many of the neighboring towns now allowing them. I think best bet is to buy something that is already zoned for multifamily and/or grandfathered in, however this go around we just couldn't find anything so we settled on a typical single family home.

* = https://homenation.com/home/mhe-mansion-mini

OTOH, I don't think that the introverted desire for solitude/privacy is exactly akin to "territoriality." In terms of personality type, I think J might be more correlated with "territoriality" than I, because black/white thinking is more tuned into whether the spot of lawn where YOUR dog shat is MINE/YOURS, whereas P is more likely to vibe in the shades of gray realm of "shit happens." The E vs. I attached to the J would be more correlated with the volume/frequency of communication about the dog/shit event. Dunno.

I should also note that pet ownership, running business out of home, or similar will also increase square footage needed to maximize happy occupation. For example, I justified renting a 450 square ft apartment just for myself on the basis that I was using one room primarily for business purposes. I think 100 square ft was the addition for pet, but not each subsequent added pet. So, married couple with a dog= 800 square ft.

I think that's probably true. DW and I are both J, which results in increased desire for space due to territoriality/autonomy. Square footage is not all equal as discussed earlier, but maybe a rough estimate is add some amount of space if both inhabitants are J. We have 2 cats which don't take up as much space as a dog but still require at least somewhere to put their litter box, food/water bowl, etc. I can understand 800 square feet for married couple and 2 cats.

OTOH, maybe frugal woman are not the majority, but Robin Greenfield seems to have no difficulty with attracting radiantly beautiful women at Level Green or Green/Yellow. I mean, sure, females shop for "lifestyle/status" number one ( in long-term mode, in short-term mode they shop harder for "masculinity" and "looks", although they do consider these in long-term mode also) and males shop for "looks" number one (in short term mode they add "sexual availability" and in long-term mode they flip to "chastity"), but both genders also shop pretty hard for "intelligence" and "kindness." So, to the extent that "frugality" as manifested in shelter choice, etc, can be communicated as a combination of "intelligence" and "kindness" it will be attractive, whereas to the extent that "frugality' is communicated more like "lack of generosity of spirit" or "fearful, dirty hoarding", it will be unattractive.

Robin Greenfield is an outlier because he is charismatic, extroverted, tall, good looking, and now somewhat famous due to large social media following. He likely had no shortage of women being interested in him his entire life, even if he perhaps fumbled in earlier years due to lack of self-awareness. I don't disagree with what you are saying, just that a "negative" shelter signal is going to require a lot of other "positive" signals to overcome. So if a guy is not having any dating trouble, then sure live wherever you want. But there are certainly many men who do have dating trouble due at least in part to their shelter circumstances (as you indicated with your DS).

[7Wannabe5]

My parents are a few years older than you but not yet entirely decrepit.

When I consider the possibility of parking a mini-rv in my daughter's backyard, it's because I am helping out with my theoretical grandchildren and/or the garden rendered more extensive. I am less thrilled by my current gigs helping out with the grand-pets when they are out of town, in part due to my pet dander allergies. Also, you can't put a pet on your lap and read from a picture book. Okay, you can, but ...

DW and I are both J, which results in increased desire for space due to territoriality/autonomy.

I've often wondered how J on J couplings function. As a P with less innate tendency towards territoriality, I sometimes find that I have to behave "as if" territorial with J partners in order to signal "status." My approach to territory is exploration more than fence-building/walking (which is actually also inherent in "saving" since "saving" is inclusive of "placing within a secured boundary."), and most of my exploration takes place in the form of reading, so it is entirely possible for me to space out and then suddenly realize that I have only been afforded the spaces that might otherwise be occupied by a dog in relationship with a J type (passenger seat in car, 1/3 of bed, alcove in living room.) My one polyamorous partner who was even more P than me often preferred hanging out with me in my tiny spaces in dangerous neighborhoods to going home to his very J wife who had taken charge of their limousine-liberal-style-set-well-back-from-the-road-aged-golden-brick-mini-mansion. I thought it was odd and a bit off character that he owned a very large car (he usually biked the 15 miles to his place of employment) until I realized that the car was his room of his own.

Robin Greenfield is an outlier because he is charismatic, extroverted, tall, good looking, and now somewhat famous due to large social media following.

He is also an outlier in terms of his developmental level. This is why he is particularly attractive to women who are also at a higher developmental level. For example, compare/contrast with televangelist Joel Osteen who has all the characteristics you listed for Robin Greenfield and also a great deal of money. Would any of my daughter's Millennial Level Orange/Green to Green/Yellow female friends want to date Joel Osteen? Highly unlikely (unless, like me, they had adopted a practice of polyamory that allowed for the occasional Blue/Orange partner for purposes of exploratory silo-avoidance or similar) Would some of them want to date Robin Greenfield? Yes, quite likely, for towards the same reason why I wanted to date Primitive Technology Guy even though he might be shorter than me and possibly lives in the woods with his brother.

For women at level Yellow/Green, the fact that Robin is so engaged in caring for the Earth is roughly analogous to why many women are attracted to guy who is walking a puppy through the park. It makes him seem "kind enough to be good father to my unborn children" even if a woman has self-aware chosen to sublimate her maternal drive towards ecological activism or similar. To the extent that he also communicates that his ecological stewardship is at systems-level, he is also communicating the attractive quality of Intelligence. To the extent that Joel Osteen actually believes that "prayer brings wealth" he will seem to be lacking in intelligence to Level Orange and up female, to the extent that he doesn't actually believe that "prayer brings wealth" but is simply running a con on his fan-horde, he will be seen as Unkind. Similarly, many Level Orange men seem too Unkind to Level Green plus women, and lacking in Intelligence to Level Yellow plus women. For example, if the topic of climate change comes up and a Level Orange man starts explaining to dumb-blonde-me how I shouldn't worry my pretty little head since technology will surely save us, because the dikes in Holland. If I was 30 years younger, I would date Robin Greenfield just on the basis of being quite certain he wouldn't behave in this manner.

[jacob]

A big reason for the growing houses since the 1920s is the need to store an increasing amount of stuff that became increasingly cheaply available. This is evident in that modern houses allow "storage in the walls" via walk-in closets unlike old designs in which fancy people had a dresser and not-so-fancy people just had a chest.

As such, it's not just a question of number of people in the household (or the specific types or relations of people) but also how much stuff they bring along. The "stuff" lives there too!

(The size of the stuff has also increased. The room I'm sitting in is 7x7 feet. It has a closet in the wall, which was likely state-of-the-art when the house was built. Still, it would be very hard to fit in a bed and a desk or chair from a modern furniture store. Modern furniture is comparably massive too!)

As such, it's easier to add people to a household if they don't move in with a lot of stuff as well. MIL lives alone in a 2bd apartment that is stuffed to the gills with crafting materials. However, it's possible for DW&I to come visit for weeks at a time w/o any interpersonal issues.

One reason is that we're all introverts, so people aren't taxing each other with constant chattering. However, I think a big reason is also that while I think we bring the proverbial kitchen sink, we still don't bring more stuff than what fits in the trunk+backseat of a compact car and which can be stashed in front of the freezer when we arrive. In that sense DW&I likely function in the 7wb5 sense of "lentil baby". We have a small footprint. We don't alter the existing routines (much) and we add a bit to the general house-holding such as cooking, carrying out the trash, and fixing this or that.

Yet, I think if we were to move in or have MIL move in with us, the whole stuff-dynamics would change a lot. Now, it would suddenly be an issue if someone left their craft-project on the kitchen table. There would be a conflict between those who prefer X level of clutter and those who prefer Y level insofar |X-Y|>>0.

Having moved many times in my life and lived in housing of many different kinds of sizes, increasing the home size/person is by far the easiest way to deal with the stuff-dynamics. Dilution is the solution to pollution!

I think that beyond being "loving and caring and inclusive" (IMO not all these are universal positives), what Green also brings to the table for howlie-purposes is a reduced focus on accumulating stuff to gauge success. "He who dies with the most stuff wins" is no longer a goal. It's a lot easier to live with other people when you don't also have to live with their stuff!

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

I agree that stuff/space is pretty chicken/egg. I was trying to make (1) the obvious point that although placing a limit on space ultimately limits stuff, placing a limit on stuff does not ultimately limit space. The somewhat less obvious point (2) I was trying to make is that even if you are inhabiting a 10,000 square ft fortress with only a multi-tool, a barrel of lentils, and an iron pot; the fortress itself is made of stuff and its maintenance also requires stuff. Similarly, the fortress that serves to secure and maintain any form of capital is dependent upon the contributions and co-operation of society in general, at the very least at the level of not deciding to rise in rebellion against the structures that currently exist. And this aspect of reality is also at least somewhat fractal.

One reason is that we're all introverts, so people aren't taxing each other with constant chattering.

As with most things, self-aware is halfway there, as an individual only modestly extroverted, I have learned to offer "the gift of silence, (maybe because I've left the building)" to introverts as well as the gift of "appearing to be listening" and "bringing a book or something I want to talk about to boring social event" to the more extroverted.

Although, J tends more towards rigid, exact boundaries and P tends more towards messy, floppy boundaries, I don't think this is the personality trait most likely to alone determine how much stuff you have/hold. Generally, it seems like P is more likely to have stuff simply because it tends towards piling up if you don't adopt rigid routine towards clutter control. OTOH, J types tend more towards having/holding stuff because "prepping", "stockpiling", or "might come in useful someday." Since F types are more likely to sentimentally cling to belongings, and E types tend to need more forks and sofa seating for super bowl party, baby shower, or neighborhood watch jamboree, I think the types most likely to have/hold a whole lot of stuff in a very large secured space would maybe be EXFJ and ESXJ. Kind of along the spectrum from Oprah Winfrey to Martha Stewart.

I think that beyond being "loving and caring and inclusive" (IMO not all these are universal positives), what Green also brings to the table for howlie-purposes is a reduced focus on accumulating stuff to gauge success. "He who dies with the most stuff wins" is no longer a goal. It's a lot easier to live with other people when you don't also have to live with their stuff!

I agree. I think whether "loving and caring and inclusive" are less universal positives and more akin to dispersed-across-the-universal-positives. For example, if we both have a "budget within sustainable limits" that allows for $8000 spending on personal usage stuff/services per year, 3200 hours to spend on preferred activities per year, and $2000 plus 800 hours to spend on giving to others; the choices any two individuals make may not Venn diagram overlap in any of these categories, but the choices everybody might make would tend towards extending to the universal. Although, of course, the meta-decision of "sustainability" would create a de facto fairly flat hierarchy, placing the cosmopolitan morality of "Do no harm." over the cosmopolitan morality of 'Help where you best can/care." with the usual bit of squish in the middle and around the sides.

[NewBlood]

The most ERE climber dude?

https://www.redbull.com/us-en/episodes/reel-rock-s8-e2

"Charles Albert is like a ‘French Mowgli’ growing up at the bouldering utopia Fontainebleau. He took up climbing as a child and when he needed new climbing shoes as a teenager, he continued barefooted."

I wouldn't want to live in that cave in the winter though.

[AxelHeyst]

Great video, thanks for sharing. I love that his pantry is a washer drum with a bit of scrap sheet metal on top.

[NewBlood]

I love that his pantry is a washer drum with a bit of scrap sheet metal on top.

That was pretty cool.
Unfortunately, he left the cave:
https://www.redbull.com/us-en/episodes/reel-rock-s10-e7

[Jean]

I know several monogamous couples that have roommates (including us), and even with a baby. I think people don't do it because they think it wouldn't work. But it seems to work just fine.
I think drama only happens when people are immature.