Seriously thoughtful A Life ?

[bjones6416]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm serious. Why is it a "Dangerous fad"

What's dangerous about it?

I don't know if "dangerous" is the word I would use, except in the sense that I would really hate for MY generation to be defined by the values shown by these people. Luckily, I'm well out of that generation...

I think my word would be more like "disrespectful." Disrespectful of those who have to take to the streets because they truly don't have the means to put a roof over their own heads. Sponging off of others just because you don't want to BOTHER with leases and bills and appointments -- that's just lazy. In my opinion.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I actually thought of the Buddhist ideas of letting go while I was reading the article.

I kind of overlooked the relying on the kindness of others that other posters have commented on. It was the ditching of possessions that appealed to me - and how far that could go.

Added: it just occurred to me that the relying on others' kindness is a Buddhist thing too. I remember reading about a Buddhist monk being asked about the tradition of going from village to village, eating food that the villagers would provide - wasn't it improper to take food from poor people? His reply was that this tradition gave an opportunity for doing good - it struck me as a very profound response. In the West it would never normally occur to us that providing opportunities for others to help us is a good thing to do; and yet it is often the saddest of sights to see an offer of help being refused. We are generally very bad at taking aid graciously, and would much rather refuse it if possible - it reinforces our self-esteem, but dimninishes the worth of others by rejecting what they seek to offer.

Originally Posted by GeoffC

One wonders, do they pay for the use of couch and where does the electricity for the laptop etc come from, and do they pay ?

Seems a selfish way to live, forever scrounging off friends - precarious too - and it doesn't look as though they don't have money - so what do they do with it ? save for a rainy day when they decide to settle down and let the next generation do unto them what they did unto others ?

I'm certain they didn't have a $3000 begging bowl

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by beppe

She screams happiness.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

So do you my friend, it is beautiful to see...

There are very few things more enjoyable than being with your kids and watching as they discover something new.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by bjones6416

I don't know if "dangerous" is the word I would use, except in the sense that I would really hate for MY generation to be defined by the values shown by these people. Luckily, I'm well out of that generation...

I think my word would be more like "disrespectful." Disrespectful of those who have to take to the streets because they truly don't have the means to put a roof over their own heads. Sponging off of others just because you don't want to BOTHER with leases and bills and appointments -- that's just lazy. In my opinion.

Agreed!

[Sparrow]

I'm puzzled by the negative reactions.
I reread the article and I imagine it's the "Virtual homelessness" section that is most contentious. But I'm missing the part that says these people are 'sponging' off others (for all I know they pay their way, and their friends appreciate the money); or that they're disrespecting people who are involuntarily homeless.

[bjones6416]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm puzzled by the negative reactions.
I reread the article and I imagine it's the "Virtual homelessness" section that is most contentious. But I'm missing the part that says these people are 'sponging' off others (for all I know they pay their way, and their friends appreciate the money); or that they're disrespecting people who are involuntarily homeless.

Maybe you're right, and I'm reading too much into it. These are the passages that push my buttons, though:

…able to hand over the keys to his basement apartment over a year ago.
…taken to the streets with a backpack full of designer clothing, a laptop, an external hard drive, a small piano keyboard and a bicycle - an armful of goods that totals over $3,000…
The DJ has now replaced his bed with friends' couches…

Or maybe it's just sour grapes because I don't have a choice -- I have people who actually depend on me to be a responsible member of mainstream society. :-)

Most days I don't mind, though.

[Ben Thornton]

It strikes me as more of a "gap year" type thing than a sustainable way of life. The chap with the empty apartment with nothing on the walls is sustainable, I guess - just strikes me as a bit sad, really. I wonder where they will be in a couple of years?

I think that the other thing that grates, over and above the idea that they're sponging off other people for accommodation, is the impression that they are promoting themselves as being against consumerism, while at the same time having designer clothes and ipads.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I think that the other thing that grates, over and above the idea that they're sponging off other people for accommodation, is the impression that they are promoting themselves as being against consumerism, while at the same time having designer clothes and ipads.

I disagree they give the impression of being against consumerism - they're switching to digital consumerism where possible, but it's still consumerism.

"I think the shift to all digital formats in all methods and forms of media consumption is inevitable and coming very quickly," said Mr Sutton.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I disagree they give the impression of being against consumerism - they're switching to digital consumerism where possible, but it's still consumerism.

"I think the shift to all digital formats in all methods and forms of media consumption is inevitable and coming very quickly," said Mr Sutton.

The kind of thing that I meant was

The tech-savvy Los Angeles "transplant" credits his external hard drives and online services like iTunes, Hulu, Flickr, Facebook, Skype and Google Maps for allowing him to lead a minimalist life.

Is it really a minimalist life? To me, that implied a kind of asceticism, that they were promoting with the way in which the article was presented - with his empty cell-like room.

But they're not being minimalist, they're still - as you say - consuming, but digitally. Anyway, the fact is that it struck me in this way - that they were flaunting their spartan lifestyle whilst actually giving up nothing at all (and in fact looking rather privileged). Of course, my impression may be wrong, and they might in fact be wonderful people who are simply promoting a switch to digital media.

[Sparrow]

One could argue that owning a home, and shoving it in the face of every passing vagrant is being disrespectful.

I think there's more to the hostility of the article than some artificial outrage on behalf of the homeless - and I think it's not a trillion miles from a certain green-eyed god.
It's not their homelessness they're flaunting - it's their freedom!
They're not disrespecting the homeless, they're disrespecting us honest, hard-working, mortgage paying wage slaves. And we don't like having our noses rubbed in it.

[Ben Thornton]

I'm not so sure. The chap in the apartment is still paying rent - he's just got rid of most of his stuff. The "homeless" ones didn't strike me as having a viable lifestyle long term. I'd feel more free without having to rely on anyone else for accommodation, I think.

[GeoffC]

That's not what I meant when I posted the original and said it made me feel sad.

There's something lacking in this narrative where the monied individual feels happy with no roots, no tangeable objects upon which to store ones experience of life - other than on a digital existence.

No meaningful social experience other than one that relies seemingly heavily on the charity of ones friends - always assuming that there will be someone willing to provide a space for each night, no matter what that someone has planned for themselves. There's a willingness to make freedom their life, but needs others to 'help' them.

This isn't, I don't think about being poor in financial terms.

I suspect that in a few years they will tire ?

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It's not their homelessness they're flaunting - it's their freedom!

Free to not be more than 100 meters away from a wifi hotspot or outside the 3G range

All kidding aside though, I think you're right Sparrow, they aren't so much saying that they're free of all worldly goods so much as they're saying that they can be a lot more free in the lives since they dont have as much crap to carry around or worry about.

It sounds like most of them are of an age where that sort of freedom could be ideal. Where they can pick up at the drop of hat and move to the city where they just got offered that job. Like Geoff said give them a few years and I'm betting most will see the advantages in some stability and permanence in their lives.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I suspect that in a few years they will tire ?

I lived through the major custom revolution of the sitxies. Of the more extreme then, that I knew personally and frequented only one has maintained his poise and mannerism. And he is doing quite well being an artist. The other have all gone back to what they were opposing, loans for the house, family, jobs, moderation. Invisibility..

Youth must be let to try its new ways (really always the same). What makes me sad, is not the digital, but the void. .

[kennyc]

Yes the void
the void is to be avoided.