Walden and No Impact Man take wildly different approaches to reducing environmental impact on an individual level. In Walden, the focus is on being self-sufficient and detached from reliance on the ‘market,’ whereas Beavan attempts to completely eliminate his and his family’s environmental footprint.
Given the examples of Thoreau and Beavan, through which method is it easier to have low impact on the environment? Which method is more effective for actually being sustainable? Are either of their approaches practical for the lives that we live and the situations we are in?
There are also varying degrees of interactions that the two have with the world around them. Beavan specifically has significant strife in his personal/familial life from undertaking his experiment. Do the conflicts that arise from these experiments have a net negative or net positive impact on the ‘main characters’ and the people they interact with? To what extent are the two of them able to influence others to also be more sustainable?
Rose Benton, Hannah Mitchell, Matt Bruff, Cooper White
Trying to reconnect to the natural world. Less comfort in the home so more time spent outside. Home as a “seat.”
“Sadness for the wanting part of me,” – Michelle. Uses retail therapy as a coping mechanism, stating luxuries and comforts as addictions. Echoes Thoreau: “I also have in my mind that seemingly wealthy, but most terribly impoverished class of all, who have accumulated dross, but know not how to use it, or get rid of it, and thus have forged their own golden or silver fetters.”
Both Colin and Thoreau say they don’t recommend following the same path, the experiment is meant to be inspiring not a guidebook. Colin contradicts this by pressuring his family into it and showing the NYU students how to be ‘No Impact’.
Questions:
What limitations/restrictions in our lives prevent us from following in Colin’s footsteps?
How and why does the media negatively reflect Colin’s journey (or other journeys of pursuing a more sustainable life)?
Would it work better for people to be pushed to pursue a more sustainable lifestyle (like Colin was doing in the film “No Impact Man”) or should people be guided into living a more sustainable lifestyle by such authors such as Thoreau? Why?
Anna Gardner, Em Morris, Megan Langlois, Spencer Armstrong, Evan Morgan
Colin Beavan, like Thoreau, tried to live as disconnected from the modern world as possible by growing his own food instead of purchasing it, cutting back on waste, turning off the air conditioning, and generally living off the grid.
Moreover, Beavan and Thoreau made arbitrary decisions about what they should and shouldn’t have. We feel that “voluntary poverty,” which we discussed in class, applies to this situation as a link between the two studies. Whether it was Thoreau having an axe to borrow or having a few basic items of furniture, or Beavan choosing to travel and utilize public transit, neither of them could have survived without assistance in one way or another.
Lastly, we connected Beavan and Thoreau through their affinity to nature. Thoreau spent a lot of time outside since he had no power to sacrifice. After cutting their internet connection, Beavan and his family developed a bond with nature.
Despite their experiments to separate from civility, both Thoreau and Beavan needed community in one way or another. Neither could completely separate themselves whether it was in terms of borrowing or simply how civilization changed over time. Knowing this, do we think that someone could ever do this experiment while completely separating themselves? Is it possible in the modern life? Was it possible during Thoreau’s time? Why or why not?
One of the important similarities between both Thoreau and Beavan is their reliance on the communities surrounding them and their similar philosophical beliefs about minimalism and personal growth. Thoreau focuses more on the value of nature while Beavan focuses more on environmentalism. Thoreau would not have lived in a cabin without first borrowing an axe, and Beavan wouldn’t have been able to keep up with his ever important blogs without borrowing a solar panel. However, one of the major differences between the two is the fact that Thoreau valued isolation, while Beavan remained in the hustle and bustle of New York City. A question we can ask is does one need to be a member of an established community in order to live sustainably such as Beavan, or can one cultivate their own? Or is it just as important to remain connected with nature, and isolate oneself to find the value of sustainability?
We can also acknowledge the fact that both Thoreau and Beavan already had pre-existing wealth before they decided to live with “no impact”. We can also ask ourselves the question; Is wealth a precursor to living with little to no impact in our world today for an average person? Is it even possible to live at this level of sustainability and simplicity in this day and age where we are so reliant on technology and systems that are so naturally unsustainable?
Michelle Hood, Ben Watson, Liam Evans, Grady Isaacs
Trying to reconnect to the natural world. Less comfort in the home so more time spent outside. Home as a “seat.”
“Sadness for the wanting part of me,” – Michelle. Uses retail therapy as a coping mechanism, stating luxuries and comforts as addictions. Echoes Thoreau: “I also have in my mind that seemingly wealthy, but most terribly impoverished class of all, who have accumulated dross, but know not how to use it, or get rid of it, and thus have forged their own golden or silver fetters.”
Both Colin and Thoreau say they don’t recommend following the same path, the experiment is meant to be inspiring not a guidebook. Colin contradicts this by pressuring his family into it and showing the NYU students how to be ‘No Impact’.
Thoreau and Colin, though separated by time, find that society is disconnected from the natural and from community. Thoreau problematizes the division of labor and overconsumption, finding these are some of the roots of our issues as seen here, “What shall I learn of beans or beans of me? I cherish them, I hoe them, early and late I have an eye to them; and this is my day’s work. It is a fine broad leaf to look on” (pg. 146). He describes the joy in seeing the end result of one’s labor and producing to meet one’s needs. Though Collins does not delve into division of labor he finds overconsumption to be a large issue especially for the health of the natural world. Thoreau works to reconnect with the natural through solitude. However, he is not alone. He finds companions in the nonhuman presences and even human visitors. Collin does not leave the city as Thoreau does and is not living alone; and yet Collin has also left society. He has however found community most notably in the form of the farmers market and garden. This leads me to wonder: must one remove themself from society to find community? In our society that cultivates individualism, how are we to find community without removing ourselves from it? Thoreau’s community includes human and nonhumans, even describing his relationship with the beans as “intimate” and something he learned from. “As I had little aid […] I was much slower, and became much more intimate with my beans than usual. But labor of the hands […] is perhaps never the worst form of idleness. It has a constant and imperishable moral, and to the scholar it yields a classic result” (pg. 148). Collin does not appear to cultivate community with the natural and consistently references “the environment” as completely separate from the human. Is it possibly to cultivate sustainable living practices while viewing the natural in such a dichotomy? Can one be a part of change when they are not listening to and working with the nonhuman?
Questions:
What limitations/restrictions in our lives prevent us from following in Colin’s footsteps?
How and why does the media negatively reflect Colin’s journey (or other journeys of pursuing a more sustainable life)?
Would it work better for people to be pushed to pursue a more sustainable lifestyle (like Colin was doing in the film “No Impact Man”) or should people be guided into living a more sustainable lifestyle by such authors such as Thoreau? Why?
Must one remove themself from society to find community? In our society that cultivates individualism, how are we to find community without removing ourselves from it?
Is it possibly to cultivate sustainable living practices while viewing the natural in such a dichotomy? Can one be a part of change when they are not listening to and working with the nonhuman?
A theme that we found was consistent in the film and in Walden was this notion that you cannot actually live an “eco-friendly” lifestyle without community. This was addressed in main two points between the film and Walden. One, in order for Thoreau and Colin to embark on this journey they both needed help in the initial process. As we have discussed in class Thoreau makes it very clear that he could not have started his journey without an ax from his friend and the bark of trees. Similarly Colin is reliant on his local community aka the farmers and other knowledgeable environmental experts, to be able to maintain his chosen lifestyle. This stresses the importance that community is at the core of creating a more environmentally friendly society and community can be people or nature. Further, we made another connection between Walden and No Man Impact in that they both desire to connect with their food systems. Thoreau explains this extensively in his epiphany while hoeing his own beans. Colin seeks out his local community gardener, Mayer Vishner, who teaches him how to grow food as well as he visits Hawthorn farm to meet the cows he eats (35:10). These two points from Walden and the film made us question:
What is considered a community and how do we encourage people to engage with theirs? Certainly Thoreau went about it in a very different way than Colin did.
One key point of connection between the film and Thoreau’s Walden is that both Thoreau and Colin Beavan see their experiences as experiments driven by curiosity. While Thoreau experiments with living completely off the grid in the woods, Beavan tries to live completely carbon and waste neutral in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world. One could argue based on this description of the experiments that Beavan’s attempt at living with no impact on the environment was much more difficult than Thoreau’s. Another differing aspect of Beavan’s experiment is that he has a wife and a child which also participated in the experiment. This factor seemed to make the situation for Beavan much more difficult mentally. Another mental aspect which Beavan had to endure that Thoereau did not was the public’s scrutiny for his experiment. Because of the media technology that existed in 2009, Beavan’s experiment was broadcasted and subsequently ridiculed nationwide. On the other hand, Thoreau may have endured some questioning from the people within his community, however, it was not on the scale that it was for Beavan. This raises the question: would more people attempt to live with no to little environmental impact if society and media did not condition them to do otherwise? Another question which is important to ask is: does having other people who live with you make it more or less difficult to endure the mental side effects of attempting something such as this? And finally, why does society feel their values are challenged when someone attempts to live more sustainably than they do, and is this an indicator of a deeper disconnect from nature within society that is non-repairable?
Beavan and Thoreau’s experiments both speak to our modern condition of overconsumption and exploitation. They would agree that a good life starts with self-determination and focuses on the commitment to simplicity and minimalism. The experiments went against conventional ways of living in order to determine the real necessities of life. At their core, these men were trying to lead a life according to nature but their motives were different. Thoreau was on a quest for deeper self awareness and understanding. He was dissatisfied by the government and human behavior so he took to the woods to discover what he truly desired. Beavan aimed to bring attention to environmental degradation by conducting a radical self experiment. He was dissatisfied by the state of the world and was looking for something to dedicate himself to. Both experiments are very admirable but different in practice. The main focus of Walden was not to have a net zero impact on the environment for a year. Despite the differences, do you think Thoreau would have agreed with or supported Beavan in his research?
Both Beavan and Thoreau experimented with extreme downsizing to simplify their lifestyles. Beavans year without waste posed quite different difficulties than Thoreau experienced, considering he and his wife and child were living in an apartment in downtown New York in the early 2000s. Since it was Beavans idea it somewhat seemed like he was running the show, and his wife and child had to accommodate their lifestyles to his new standards, even if it sounded unpleasant. Conducting life experiments like this with other people involves consistent open communication and total honesty. My question is, if this type of lifestyle were to be pursued on a larger scale community, what are ways in which major changes could be conducted without sacrificing people’s wants and needs?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Walden and No Impact Man take wildly different approaches to reducing environmental impact on an individual level. In Walden, the focus is on being self-sufficient and detached from reliance on the ‘market,’ whereas Beavan attempts to completely eliminate his and his family’s environmental footprint.
Given the examples of Thoreau and Beavan, through which method is it easier to have low impact on the environment? Which method is more effective for actually being sustainable? Are either of their approaches practical for the lives that we live and the situations we are in?
There are also varying degrees of interactions that the two have with the world around them. Beavan specifically has significant strife in his personal/familial life from undertaking his experiment. Do the conflicts that arise from these experiments have a net negative or net positive impact on the ‘main characters’ and the people they interact with? To what extent are the two of them able to influence others to also be more sustainable?
3 Points of Contact:
Questions:
Perry Daughtry
Anna Gardner, Em Morris, Megan Langlois, Spencer Armstrong, Evan Morgan
Colin Beavan, like Thoreau, tried to live as disconnected from the modern world as possible by growing his own food instead of purchasing it, cutting back on waste, turning off the air conditioning, and generally living off the grid.
Moreover, Beavan and Thoreau made arbitrary decisions about what they should and shouldn’t have. We feel that “voluntary poverty,” which we discussed in class, applies to this situation as a link between the two studies. Whether it was Thoreau having an axe to borrow or having a few basic items of furniture, or Beavan choosing to travel and utilize public transit, neither of them could have survived without assistance in one way or another.
Lastly, we connected Beavan and Thoreau through their affinity to nature. Thoreau spent a lot of time outside since he had no power to sacrifice. After cutting their internet connection, Beavan and his family developed a bond with nature.
Despite their experiments to separate from civility, both Thoreau and Beavan needed community in one way or another. Neither could completely separate themselves whether it was in terms of borrowing or simply how civilization changed over time. Knowing this, do we think that someone could ever do this experiment while completely separating themselves? Is it possible in the modern life? Was it possible during Thoreau’s time? Why or why not?
One of the important similarities between both Thoreau and Beavan is their reliance on the communities surrounding them and their similar philosophical beliefs about minimalism and personal growth. Thoreau focuses more on the value of nature while Beavan focuses more on environmentalism. Thoreau would not have lived in a cabin without first borrowing an axe, and Beavan wouldn’t have been able to keep up with his ever important blogs without borrowing a solar panel. However, one of the major differences between the two is the fact that Thoreau valued isolation, while Beavan remained in the hustle and bustle of New York City. A question we can ask is does one need to be a member of an established community in order to live sustainably such as Beavan, or can one cultivate their own? Or is it just as important to remain connected with nature, and isolate oneself to find the value of sustainability?
We can also acknowledge the fact that both Thoreau and Beavan already had pre-existing wealth before they decided to live with “no impact”. We can also ask ourselves the question; Is wealth a precursor to living with little to no impact in our world today for an average person? Is it even possible to live at this level of sustainability and simplicity in this day and age where we are so reliant on technology and systems that are so naturally unsustainable?
Aaron Batty, Perry Daughtry, Anna Harrison
Points of Contact:
A theme that we found was consistent in the film and in Walden was this notion that you cannot actually live an “eco-friendly” lifestyle without community. This was addressed in main two points between the film and Walden. One, in order for Thoreau and Colin to embark on this journey they both needed help in the initial process. As we have discussed in class Thoreau makes it very clear that he could not have started his journey without an ax from his friend and the bark of trees. Similarly Colin is reliant on his local community aka the farmers and other knowledgeable environmental experts, to be able to maintain his chosen lifestyle. This stresses the importance that community is at the core of creating a more environmentally friendly society and community can be people or nature. Further, we made another connection between Walden and No Man Impact in that they both desire to connect with their food systems. Thoreau explains this extensively in his epiphany while hoeing his own beans. Colin seeks out his local community gardener, Mayer Vishner, who teaches him how to grow food as well as he visits Hawthorn farm to meet the cows he eats (35:10). These two points from Walden and the film made us question:
What is considered a community and how do we encourage people to engage with theirs? Certainly Thoreau went about it in a very different way than Colin did.
Cece, Alaina, Dez
One key point of connection between the film and Thoreau’s Walden is that both Thoreau and Colin Beavan see their experiences as experiments driven by curiosity. While Thoreau experiments with living completely off the grid in the woods, Beavan tries to live completely carbon and waste neutral in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world. One could argue based on this description of the experiments that Beavan’s attempt at living with no impact on the environment was much more difficult than Thoreau’s. Another differing aspect of Beavan’s experiment is that he has a wife and a child which also participated in the experiment. This factor seemed to make the situation for Beavan much more difficult mentally. Another mental aspect which Beavan had to endure that Thoereau did not was the public’s scrutiny for his experiment. Because of the media technology that existed in 2009, Beavan’s experiment was broadcasted and subsequently ridiculed nationwide. On the other hand, Thoreau may have endured some questioning from the people within his community, however, it was not on the scale that it was for Beavan. This raises the question: would more people attempt to live with no to little environmental impact if society and media did not condition them to do otherwise? Another question which is important to ask is: does having other people who live with you make it more or less difficult to endure the mental side effects of attempting something such as this? And finally, why does society feel their values are challenged when someone attempts to live more sustainably than they do, and is this an indicator of a deeper disconnect from nature within society that is non-repairable?
Beavan and Thoreau’s experiments both speak to our modern condition of overconsumption and exploitation. They would agree that a good life starts with self-determination and focuses on the commitment to simplicity and minimalism. The experiments went against conventional ways of living in order to determine the real necessities of life. At their core, these men were trying to lead a life according to nature but their motives were different. Thoreau was on a quest for deeper self awareness and understanding. He was dissatisfied by the government and human behavior so he took to the woods to discover what he truly desired. Beavan aimed to bring attention to environmental degradation by conducting a radical self experiment. He was dissatisfied by the state of the world and was looking for something to dedicate himself to. Both experiments are very admirable but different in practice. The main focus of Walden was not to have a net zero impact on the environment for a year. Despite the differences, do you think Thoreau would have agreed with or supported Beavan in his research?
Both Beavan and Thoreau experimented with extreme downsizing to simplify their lifestyles. Beavans year without waste posed quite different difficulties than Thoreau experienced, considering he and his wife and child were living in an apartment in downtown New York in the early 2000s. Since it was Beavans idea it somewhat seemed like he was running the show, and his wife and child had to accommodate their lifestyles to his new standards, even if it sounded unpleasant. Conducting life experiments like this with other people involves consistent open communication and total honesty. My question is, if this type of lifestyle were to be pursued on a larger scale community, what are ways in which major changes could be conducted without sacrificing people’s wants and needs?
Maddy, Ollie, Johnny, Cole