A key point of contact I found myself noticing between the film and reading was this concept of ‘isolation’ through Thoreau and Beaven’s commitment to environmentalism. In Walden we hear Thoreau mention many times that the people around him perceive his work as mysterious, and he himself speaks to a certain level of isolation in his work. In the film ‘No Impact Man’ we see the general public have a quite negative, or at least controversial, response to Colin Beaven’s project, and it could even be argued that the public begins to outcast the Beaven’s family, as they are considered “unhygienic” and many question Colin Beaven’s motives. However, Colin Beaven demonstrates through his experience that he found more community in his work and discovered even more so that community is one of the foundational components of environmentalism. The question I would like to pose is why do you believe there is this general notion that through this type of works humans become self-isolated? Does a commitment to environmentalism mean that a person will become isolated? And if so, what does this say about our beliefs regarding community and its connection to capitalistic society?
When reading Walden, one of the biggest questions is what Thoreau’s experiment would look like in a modern context, or how it might change if it was done by a family rather than a single individual. Colin Beavan’s No Impact Man provides a scary, but realistic answer to those questions. In the chapter “Solitude,” Thoreau argues that physical isolation does not produce loneliness and that withdrawing from social and domestic obligations allows for moral clarity, self-reliance, and freedom. He states, “I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part more lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers.” (p. 216) This was very easy for him to achieve because his choices affected only himself. Beavan’s year-long experiment show how deliberate living functions very differently when being alone is not an option, as he remains in family life and must negotiate his ethical commitments with others who do not equally share or consent to the sacrifices involved. The film repeatedly shows how everyday decisions about food, comfort, and convenience become moral negotiations that strain relationships. There were parts of his experiment, like the lack of toilet paper and refrigerator, that created health and safety concerns for his wife. His daughter was also too young to be able to agree to participate or even understand what was going on. This highlights how ethical conviction, when unevenly distributed, can create pressure or resentment. In contrast to Thoreau’s portrayal of solitude as liberating and sufficient, No Impact Man exposes the relational costs of this lifestyle in a contemporary context, and challenges Thoreau’s ideal by suggesting that moral responsibility today is less about solitary purity and more about compromise and balancing personal values with obligations to others/your community. Some questions I have: Does the experiment of No Impact Man suggest that “living deliberately” becomes less effective when practiced collectively rather than individually? Did Beavan’s experiment produce less than excited results because not all parties were willing participants? Which model of ethical living seems more sustainable: Thoreau’s solitary withdrawal or Beavan’s negotiated, family-based approach? Can you even have sustainability without a mutually respectful community?
When reading Walden and watching the film No Impact Man, I noticed several similarities between the two. Both Thoreau and Colin Beavan perform experiments, each trying to reconnect with their environment and reduce their everyday consumption. Still, Walden brings more political commentary into the conversation, while No Impact Man offers a more contemporary perspective. Together, they show two different approaches to living more simply. In No Impact Man, Beavan lives with his family in the middle of New York City, where space is limited and growing food or using natural materials like wood isn’t easy. In contrast, Thoreau retreats alone into the woods, grows some of his own food, and lives in a small cabin in solitude. Both experiments raise the question of how long someone can realistically sustain this kind of lifestyle. Beavan’s experience feels especially raw and honest, he recognizes that a family has real needs and that some conveniences are difficult to give up entirely. Thoreau, on the other hand, seems less willing to allow for leniency in his ideals. I appreciated the “Sounds” chapter in Walden, and I see a connection to Beavan’s experience. Thoreau argues that one must slow down to truly live with nature, especially in a society moving at “railroad fashion.” Beavan lives in the city that never sleeps, yet when his family committed to living more simply, they also began to slow down. They played cards instead of watching TV, and they couldn’t rely on giving their child an iPad when they were tired. They had to plan trips to the farmers market and eat seasonally. Thoreau similarly takes time to observe nature, notices more, and even finds household chores less burdensome. Overall, both experiments highlight the systemic barriers that make it difficult to slow down, pay attention, and live more intentionally. And while Thoreau emphasizes solitude, both examples show how community plays a role in making simple living possible. Beavan relied on the support of others and the walkability of his city, while Thoreau was able to live at Walden because someone else provided the land. After reflecting on these works, I’m questioning, to what extent is “simple living” a personal choice, and to what extent is it shaped or even limited by the systems, communities, and environments we inhabit? While I do believe solitude is important, how do Thoreau’s ideas about solitude and self‑reliance hold up when compared to Beavan’s emphasis on family and community support?
Henry David Thoreau and Colin Beavan both have the goal and desire for zero-waste and no impact on the environment. These two journeys occurred with about 150 years between them, and through the film it is evident that today there are more wants, and maybe needs, that must be gotten rid of in order to live a no impact lifestyle. Yet the Beavan family is able to go through the phases and become an almost completely zero-waste home, and they do this in one of the most populated cities that is surrounded by pollution and lots of waste. In the beginning of the film, Beavan says that being around his friends and family makes him feel more supposed to live a no impact life, and in opposition, in the chapter Solitude, Thoreau says that being in the middle of nature if the only place to get rid of melancholy, and that being around people and socializing is a frivolous activity. Thoreau writes “ I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone, I never found a companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part more lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers,” (Thoreau pg 205). Would Thoreau disagree with the way that the Beavan family still uses pieces of energy and waste (such as watching television at a friend’s house, taking their ice, wearing makeup, or using computers) and continues to be social and keep their friends throughout this journey? Or with how fast-paced and social the world today is, especially in New York, is the Beavan family being as zero-waste as possible, and do they need friends and conversations to further this impact?
Point 1 of contact: Both thoreau and Colin set out to live a period of their life in line with their values, which share the goal of living a simple non-consumeristic lifestyle and reconnecting with the earth/turning to nature. Previous in-class debate surrounding Thoreau’s lifestyle framed it as unattainable or non realistic to achieve due to the time difference and lack of personal guidance for what one should do. Now with Colin’s modern day “No Impact Man” project, where he details what exactly he does and the changes he makes, can living a simple non-consumeristic sustainable lifestyle be seen as more attainable and doable?
Point of contact 2: Both Thoreau and Colin seek to understand how to live well with less, through sustainable means. While Thoreau focuses on how little can one consume, Colin focuses more on finding a way to get what one needs in a sustainable way. Based on their differing approaches to the same goal, do you believe it is better to approach low-impact living from a perspective of minimizing consumption or instead, not focusing as much on using as little as possible but getting what one needs in a sustainable way?
In reading the first few chapters of Thoreau’s Walden and viewing the film No Impact Man, they both critique the common perception that more comfort and convenience equal a better life. They both believed in intentionally limiting consumption to live more meaningfully. Both Thoreau’s and Colin treat this idea of simplicity as an active practice. Walden removes himself from society to examine what is truly necessary and Colin conducts his experiment within modern systems he can’t fully escape. Thoreau shows that simplicity is largely an individual decision and that people can choose freedom if they want to do so. Colin’s experiment revealed some of the structural barriers of reducing, especially living in NYC, as well as the social barriers and criticism. Is withdrawing from society a more effective technique of critiquing consumer culture than attempting to live differently within it, or do both approaches just show the limits of what individuals can do inside bigger systems? Additionally, who actually has the access to choose simplicity, and how would voluntary simplicity be different from being forced into a life of scarcity?
In Walden Thoreau recognizes that his experiment would not have been possible without borrowing things and accepting help from others. He also was given the plot of land for his experiment from his close friend. During his experiment Thoreau also concedes that he was not fully self-reliant and was not totally isolated from society. In No Impact Man, the Bevean family attempts to reduce their impact on the environment by drastically changing the way they live. During their experiment the Beveans reduce their needs by going without electricity, not eating imported food, and not using carbon producing transportation to live more simply and have a positive impact on the environment. However, the experiment is not a total success and the Bevean’s find that they cannot totally disconnect. They rely on their neighbors’ fridge for ice to store food and still use electricity in their jobs to afford their lifestyle. When beginning and during the experiment the Beveans also rely on the knowledge of others in living sustainably and rely on a local farmers market for food. The Beveans did reduce their impact on their environment, but they still were reliant on carbon producing tech and a community to establish their sustainable living. With this in mind do you think it is possible for one to truly live sustainably without the support of a sustainably minded community? Is it possible to live sustainably/simply in today’s modern world in accordance with nature? Can one live simply without having a harmful impact on the environment and without the help of others?
In Walden Thoreau recognizes that his experiment would not have been possible without borrowing things and accepting help from others. He also was given the plot of land for his experiment from his close friend. During his experiment Theroua also concedes that he was not fully self-reliant and was not totally isolated from society. In No Impact Man, the Bevean family attempts to reduce their impact on the environment by drastically changing the way they live. During their experiment the Beveans reduce their needs by going without electricity, not eating imported food, and not using carbon producing transportation to live more simply and have a positive impact on the environment. However, the experiment is not a total success and the Bevean’s find that they cannot totally disconnect. They rely on their neighbors’ fridge for ice to store food and still use electricity in their jobs to afford their lifestyle. When beginning and during the experiment the Beveans also rely on the knowledge of others in living sustainably and rely on a local farmers market for food. The Beveans did reduce their impact on their environment, but they still were reliant on carbon producing tech and a community to establish their sustainable living. With this in mind do you think it is possible for one to truly live sustainably without the support of a sustainably minded community? Is it possible to live sustainably/simply in today’s modern world in accordance with nature? Can one live simply without having a harmful impact on the environment and without the help of others?
While watching No Impact Man and reading Walden, I saw some commonalities where the protagonists of the story and experiment are 1) called out for being bourgeois, high class escapists, flaunting their lifestyle on others who cannot afford to make the switch, and 2) not really changing the way of the world. Regarding Colin and Michelle being criticized for ignoring those who already live low-impact lives (such as the farmers, rural population, etc, called out by the NYT and Kerry Truman (33:11″)), I’d want to ask: what is the role of those in urban and developed landscapes in reducing consumption, drastically, without doing so radically that it might put others off? Further in the documentary, Colin highlights the role of neighborhood environmentalism and concerns of asthma and local pollution from waste disposal and industry. “There’s this network of people who have been working on this stuff forever” (1:16:33″). What tangible skills can we (I myself, and those around me in SD, BIO, Art, Poli-sci) offer to the community to support this notion of low-impact and environmental sustainability? What does the community need?
What is the role of those in urban and developed landscapes in reducing consumption, drastically, without doing so radically that it might put others off?
What tangible skills can we (I myself, and those around me in SD, BIO, Art, Poli-sci) offer to the community to support this notion of low-impact and environmental sustainability? What does the community need?
Both No Impact Man and Walden explore what it means to live frugally in a society structured around consumption, promoting the ideas of intentional simplicity as a form of critique. Throughout Walden, Thoreau continuously argues that people in society are “so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life” that they miss its deeper meaning rooted in the environment. His decision to live in a small cabin with minimal possessions is meant to expose how little is actually necessary for a meaningful life. Similarly, No Impact Man documents Colin Beavan’s year-long attempt to reduce his environmental footprint by eliminating consumer conveniences that are accepted as “natural” in society such as electricity, packaged food, and motorized transport. A key scene within the film reveals the family’s struggles while hauling groceries up multiple flights of stairs after giving up the elevator. These struggles mirror Thoreau’s larger ideas of simplicity. While challenging self agency is not about deprivation, but about reclaiming agency from systems that normalize excess. Furthermore, both Walden and No Impact Man question whether individual lifestyle change can promote broader societal change. Thoreau’s retreat to Walden Pond was never meant as an escape from society; it was a statement meant to provoke readers to rethink the effects of society’s labor, consumption, and progress. Likewise, the film is larger than Beavan’s household experiment as it promoted public engagement, and conversations about systemic change. The documentary suggests, much like Thoreau’s message to “live deliberately,” that personal action matters most when it sparks dialogue and collective thought. Together, the film and the book argue that while individual experiments are limited, they can serve as powerful examples that challenge the dominant narratives of growth, convenience, and success within society. This film leads me to question: To what extent should sustainability be framed as an individual moral responsibility versus a collective and systemic one, and do experiments like Thoreau’s or Beavan’s in No Impact Man meaningfully challenge larger structures of consumption or simply place all the burden of change on individuals alone?
While watching Colin Beaven’s film No Impact Man, I noticed several intersections between his year-long sustainability experiment and Thoreau’s experiment at Walden Pond. In both circumstances, Beaven and Thoreau seek to reject conformity and undergo extreme lifestyle changes to break free from patterns they observe in their surrounding societies. Despite having different objectives (self-fulfillment vs collective sustainability) both men explore similar ideas and approaches in pursuit of their respective goals. Some of these shared approaches include the adoption of “radical” alternative technologies from past or other cultures, self-sustaining agricultural practices, and anti-consumerist mindsets. I also noticed that while it may not have been his primary goal, Beaven discovered some of the same emotional products that Thoreau dissected in his search for a more fulfilling lifestyle. Beaven and his family spent more quality time together, went outside more, got more exercise, and read more as a result of their experiment. They had more time for activities that fulfilled them and brought them closer together as a result of their departure from conformity. Ultimately, however, it seemed impossible for the Beavens to undergo their experiment seamlessly. They ended up having to rely on the kindness of surrounding community members (community members with access to the technology Colin’s experiment banned) in order to continue living realistically.
I have a few questions about No Impact Man but a lot of them revolve around the idea of Beaven’s experiment being radical. Beaven’s experiment was highly publicized and was met with a lot of public reactionary content. There was one critic in particular who suggested that Beaven’s experiment might have been more concerned with widespread attention than actually making change. I don’t think the experiment was some huge attention grab but I do wonder if Colin’s experience would have yielded different results if he wasn’t being filmed and attending talk shows throughout the whole ordeal. Colin’s older gardening mentor suggested that the No Impact Man experiment wasn’t radical enough, because if it was truly radical, the media wouldn’t be so quick to capitalize off of it. I agree that Colin’s experiment was ideal material for media attention but I’m unsure whether that’s because it wasn’t radical enough or because parts of it seemed too impossible to be adopted by the public.
In “Sounds” and “Solitude” and the film “No Impact Men” they both take a similar approach. In “Sounds and Solitude” Thoreau pulls away from the rat race of everyday life and focuses on the simple things and pays closer attention to the world around him. While No Impact Man focuses on kind of the same thing but in a modern city, with a family and way more social pressure then “Sounds and Solitude” . Some questions I had was how do you think most people would look at Colin for his lifestyle choices? Does No Impact Man suggest that Thoreau’s ideas about simplicity and awareness still make sense today, or does it show how difficult they are to imply in modern day life?
While watching the film No Impact Man, I found myself drawing comparisons and differences from Walden. Thoreau and Colin Beavan both aspired to live sustainably but in different ways. Thoreau’s decisions to live in a minimalist manner was more for the meaning life and ecological model/impact while Beavan’s attempt of the low impact project was in pursuit for a sustainable lifestyle. Beavans experiment gave a contemporary take on the economy and environment. Throughout the book I admired Thoreau’s dedication and abilities to live simply but I found it sometimes hard to believe that some of his ways were possible in this day and age. On the other hand, the film allowed me to think about more contemporary ways to live sustainably. In the end, Beavan realized the he could not give up everything completely with his lifestyle and the modern day systems in place. Do you think Colin Beavan’s project would’ve exceeded if not in a major city like NYC? Maybe in a different time period? Would the project succeed if Beavan truly connect with nature and the environment like Thoreau did despite living in fast paced NYC?
Watching No Impact Man made me think a lot about Walden’s “Conclusion”. “Conclusion” was a beautifully written chapter that served as Thoreau’s final reflection on his time spent at Walden. In this chapter, Thoreau states that he is leaving the woods because he “had other lives to live”. This, in itself, brough several questions to mind. If Thoreau was in pursuit of personal and spiritual fulfillment at Walden, and supposedly he achieved it, why would he leave? If he achieved peace in this life, out at Walden, why would he give that up to live “other lives”? To further this point, I did a little bit of research on what Thoreau did after Walden. Apparently, he acted worked as a handyman, tutor, lecturer, writer, and at his families pencil factory. This all seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Meanwhile, in No Impact Man, Colin Beavan and his family did their experiment for a year. After the year had ended, they kept a few of their practices, like going to the farmers market, but overall went back to consuming and producing waste (albeit less that they originally did). This made me wonder: is a long term no waste lifestyle even possible in modern society? If someone were to live no-waste for over a year, what would that look like? Would it garner the same amount of attention as Colin Beavan’s experiment?
I guess that question that comes to mind regarding these two subjects is: is it even possible to live a long-term truly self-sustaining, spiritually fulfilling life in the woods like Thoreau? Or a long-term zero-waste, environmentally conscious lifestyle like Beavan? Or are these lifestyles only meant to be short term “experiments” that offer morally superior brief insights?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
A key point of contact I found myself noticing between the film and reading was this concept of ‘isolation’ through Thoreau and Beaven’s commitment to environmentalism. In Walden we hear Thoreau mention many times that the people around him perceive his work as mysterious, and he himself speaks to a certain level of isolation in his work. In the film ‘No Impact Man’ we see the general public have a quite negative, or at least controversial, response to Colin Beaven’s project, and it could even be argued that the public begins to outcast the Beaven’s family, as they are considered “unhygienic” and many question Colin Beaven’s motives. However, Colin Beaven demonstrates through his experience that he found more community in his work and discovered even more so that community is one of the foundational components of environmentalism. The question I would like to pose is why do you believe there is this general notion that through this type of works humans become self-isolated? Does a commitment to environmentalism mean that a person will become isolated? And if so, what does this say about our beliefs regarding community and its connection to capitalistic society?
When reading Walden, one of the biggest questions is what Thoreau’s experiment would look like in a modern context, or how it might change if it was done by a family rather than a single individual. Colin Beavan’s No Impact Man provides a scary, but realistic answer to those questions. In the chapter “Solitude,” Thoreau argues that physical isolation does not produce loneliness and that withdrawing from social and domestic obligations allows for moral clarity, self-reliance, and freedom. He states, “I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part more lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers.” (p. 216) This was very easy for him to achieve because his choices affected only himself. Beavan’s year-long experiment show how deliberate living functions very differently when being alone is not an option, as he remains in family life and must negotiate his ethical commitments with others who do not equally share or consent to the sacrifices involved. The film repeatedly shows how everyday decisions about food, comfort, and convenience become moral negotiations that strain relationships. There were parts of his experiment, like the lack of toilet paper and refrigerator, that created health and safety concerns for his wife. His daughter was also too young to be able to agree to participate or even understand what was going on. This highlights how ethical conviction, when unevenly distributed, can create pressure or resentment. In contrast to Thoreau’s portrayal of solitude as liberating and sufficient, No Impact Man exposes the relational costs of this lifestyle in a contemporary context, and challenges Thoreau’s ideal by suggesting that moral responsibility today is less about solitary purity and more about compromise and balancing personal values with obligations to others/your community. Some questions I have: Does the experiment of No Impact Man suggest that “living deliberately” becomes less effective when practiced collectively rather than individually? Did Beavan’s experiment produce less than excited results because not all parties were willing participants? Which model of ethical living seems more sustainable: Thoreau’s solitary withdrawal or Beavan’s negotiated, family-based approach? Can you even have sustainability without a mutually respectful community?
Cameron Pleasants
When reading Walden and watching the film No Impact Man, I noticed several similarities between the two. Both Thoreau and Colin Beavan perform experiments, each trying to reconnect with their environment and reduce their everyday consumption. Still, Walden brings more political commentary into the conversation, while No Impact Man offers a more contemporary perspective. Together, they show two different approaches to living more simply. In No Impact Man, Beavan lives with his family in the middle of New York City, where space is limited and growing food or using natural materials like wood isn’t easy. In contrast, Thoreau retreats alone into the woods, grows some of his own food, and lives in a small cabin in solitude. Both experiments raise the question of how long someone can realistically sustain this kind of lifestyle. Beavan’s experience feels especially raw and honest, he recognizes that a family has real needs and that some conveniences are difficult to give up entirely. Thoreau, on the other hand, seems less willing to allow for leniency in his ideals. I appreciated the “Sounds” chapter in Walden, and I see a connection to Beavan’s experience. Thoreau argues that one must slow down to truly live with nature, especially in a society moving at “railroad fashion.” Beavan lives in the city that never sleeps, yet when his family committed to living more simply, they also began to slow down. They played cards instead of watching TV, and they couldn’t rely on giving their child an iPad when they were tired. They had to plan trips to the farmers market and eat seasonally. Thoreau similarly takes time to observe nature, notices more, and even finds household chores less burdensome. Overall, both experiments highlight the systemic barriers that make it difficult to slow down, pay attention, and live more intentionally. And while Thoreau emphasizes solitude, both examples show how community plays a role in making simple living possible. Beavan relied on the support of others and the walkability of his city, while Thoreau was able to live at Walden because someone else provided the land. After reflecting on these works, I’m questioning, to what extent is “simple living” a personal choice, and to what extent is it shaped or even limited by the systems, communities, and environments we inhabit? While I do believe solitude is important, how do Thoreau’s ideas about solitude and self‑reliance hold up when compared to Beavan’s emphasis on family and community support?
Kayleigh Rolison
Henry David Thoreau and Colin Beavan both have the goal and desire for zero-waste and no impact on the environment. These two journeys occurred with about 150 years between them, and through the film it is evident that today there are more wants, and maybe needs, that must be gotten rid of in order to live a no impact lifestyle. Yet the Beavan family is able to go through the phases and become an almost completely zero-waste home, and they do this in one of the most populated cities that is surrounded by pollution and lots of waste. In the beginning of the film, Beavan says that being around his friends and family makes him feel more supposed to live a no impact life, and in opposition, in the chapter Solitude, Thoreau says that being in the middle of nature if the only place to get rid of melancholy, and that being around people and socializing is a frivolous activity. Thoreau writes “ I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone, I never found a companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part more lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers,” (Thoreau pg 205). Would Thoreau disagree with the way that the Beavan family still uses pieces of energy and waste (such as watching television at a friend’s house, taking their ice, wearing makeup, or using computers) and continues to be social and keep their friends throughout this journey? Or with how fast-paced and social the world today is, especially in New York, is the Beavan family being as zero-waste as possible, and do they need friends and conversations to further this impact?
Brynne Dieterle
Phoebe Sorensen
Point 1 of contact: Both thoreau and Colin set out to live a period of their life in line with their values, which share the goal of living a simple non-consumeristic lifestyle and reconnecting with the earth/turning to nature. Previous in-class debate surrounding Thoreau’s lifestyle framed it as unattainable or non realistic to achieve due to the time difference and lack of personal guidance for what one should do. Now with Colin’s modern day “No Impact Man” project, where he details what exactly he does and the changes he makes, can living a simple non-consumeristic sustainable lifestyle be seen as more attainable and doable?
Point of contact 2: Both Thoreau and Colin seek to understand how to live well with less, through sustainable means. While Thoreau focuses on how little can one consume, Colin focuses more on finding a way to get what one needs in a sustainable way. Based on their differing approaches to the same goal, do you believe it is better to approach low-impact living from a perspective of minimizing consumption or instead, not focusing as much on using as little as possible but getting what one needs in a sustainable way?
In reading the first few chapters of Thoreau’s Walden and viewing the film No Impact Man, they both critique the common perception that more comfort and convenience equal a better life. They both believed in intentionally limiting consumption to live more meaningfully. Both Thoreau’s and Colin treat this idea of simplicity as an active practice. Walden removes himself from society to examine what is truly necessary and Colin conducts his experiment within modern systems he can’t fully escape. Thoreau shows that simplicity is largely an individual decision and that people can choose freedom if they want to do so. Colin’s experiment revealed some of the structural barriers of reducing, especially living in NYC, as well as the social barriers and criticism. Is withdrawing from society a more effective technique of critiquing consumer culture than attempting to live differently within it, or do both approaches just show the limits of what individuals can do inside bigger systems? Additionally, who actually has the access to choose simplicity, and how would voluntary simplicity be different from being forced into a life of scarcity?
Ianna Pfeifer
In Walden, Thoreau removes himself…* My mistake!- Ianna
In Walden Thoreau recognizes that his experiment would not have been possible without borrowing things and accepting help from others. He also was given the plot of land for his experiment from his close friend. During his experiment Thoreau also concedes that he was not fully self-reliant and was not totally isolated from society. In No Impact Man, the Bevean family attempts to reduce their impact on the environment by drastically changing the way they live. During their experiment the Beveans reduce their needs by going without electricity, not eating imported food, and not using carbon producing transportation to live more simply and have a positive impact on the environment. However, the experiment is not a total success and the Bevean’s find that they cannot totally disconnect. They rely on their neighbors’ fridge for ice to store food and still use electricity in their jobs to afford their lifestyle. When beginning and during the experiment the Beveans also rely on the knowledge of others in living sustainably and rely on a local farmers market for food. The Beveans did reduce their impact on their environment, but they still were reliant on carbon producing tech and a community to establish their sustainable living. With this in mind do you think it is possible for one to truly live sustainably without the support of a sustainably minded community? Is it possible to live sustainably/simply in today’s modern world in accordance with nature? Can one live simply without having a harmful impact on the environment and without the help of others?
-Adam Blutreich
In Walden Thoreau recognizes that his experiment would not have been possible without borrowing things and accepting help from others. He also was given the plot of land for his experiment from his close friend. During his experiment Theroua also concedes that he was not fully self-reliant and was not totally isolated from society. In No Impact Man, the Bevean family attempts to reduce their impact on the environment by drastically changing the way they live. During their experiment the Beveans reduce their needs by going without electricity, not eating imported food, and not using carbon producing transportation to live more simply and have a positive impact on the environment. However, the experiment is not a total success and the Bevean’s find that they cannot totally disconnect. They rely on their neighbors’ fridge for ice to store food and still use electricity in their jobs to afford their lifestyle. When beginning and during the experiment the Beveans also rely on the knowledge of others in living sustainably and rely on a local farmers market for food. The Beveans did reduce their impact on their environment, but they still were reliant on carbon producing tech and a community to establish their sustainable living. With this in mind do you think it is possible for one to truly live sustainably without the support of a sustainably minded community? Is it possible to live sustainably/simply in today’s modern world in accordance with nature? Can one live simply without having a harmful impact on the environment and without the help of others?
-Adam Blutreich
While watching No Impact Man and reading Walden, I saw some commonalities where the protagonists of the story and experiment are 1) called out for being bourgeois, high class escapists, flaunting their lifestyle on others who cannot afford to make the switch, and 2) not really changing the way of the world. Regarding Colin and Michelle being criticized for ignoring those who already live low-impact lives (such as the farmers, rural population, etc, called out by the NYT and Kerry Truman (33:11″)), I’d want to ask: what is the role of those in urban and developed landscapes in reducing consumption, drastically, without doing so radically that it might put others off? Further in the documentary, Colin highlights the role of neighborhood environmentalism and concerns of asthma and local pollution from waste disposal and industry. “There’s this network of people who have been working on this stuff forever” (1:16:33″). What tangible skills can we (I myself, and those around me in SD, BIO, Art, Poli-sci) offer to the community to support this notion of low-impact and environmental sustainability? What does the community need?
-David Bass
^^^
What is the role of those in urban and developed landscapes in reducing consumption, drastically, without doing so radically that it might put others off?
What tangible skills can we (I myself, and those around me in SD, BIO, Art, Poli-sci) offer to the community to support this notion of low-impact and environmental sustainability? What does the community need?
-David Bass
Both No Impact Man and Walden explore what it means to live frugally in a society structured around consumption, promoting the ideas of intentional simplicity as a form of critique. Throughout Walden, Thoreau continuously argues that people in society are “so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life” that they miss its deeper meaning rooted in the environment. His decision to live in a small cabin with minimal possessions is meant to expose how little is actually necessary for a meaningful life. Similarly, No Impact Man documents Colin Beavan’s year-long attempt to reduce his environmental footprint by eliminating consumer conveniences that are accepted as “natural” in society such as electricity, packaged food, and motorized transport. A key scene within the film reveals the family’s struggles while hauling groceries up multiple flights of stairs after giving up the elevator. These struggles mirror Thoreau’s larger ideas of simplicity. While challenging self agency is not about deprivation, but about reclaiming agency from systems that normalize excess. Furthermore, both Walden and No Impact Man question whether individual lifestyle change can promote broader societal change. Thoreau’s retreat to Walden Pond was never meant as an escape from society; it was a statement meant to provoke readers to rethink the effects of society’s labor, consumption, and progress. Likewise, the film is larger than Beavan’s household experiment as it promoted public engagement, and conversations about systemic change. The documentary suggests, much like Thoreau’s message to “live deliberately,” that personal action matters most when it sparks dialogue and collective thought. Together, the film and the book argue that while individual experiments are limited, they can serve as powerful examples that challenge the dominant narratives of growth, convenience, and success within society. This film leads me to question: To what extent should sustainability be framed as an individual moral responsibility versus a collective and systemic one, and do experiments like Thoreau’s or Beavan’s in No Impact Man meaningfully challenge larger structures of consumption or simply place all the burden of change on individuals alone?
Merrick Semple
While watching Colin Beaven’s film No Impact Man, I noticed several intersections between his year-long sustainability experiment and Thoreau’s experiment at Walden Pond. In both circumstances, Beaven and Thoreau seek to reject conformity and undergo extreme lifestyle changes to break free from patterns they observe in their surrounding societies. Despite having different objectives (self-fulfillment vs collective sustainability) both men explore similar ideas and approaches in pursuit of their respective goals. Some of these shared approaches include the adoption of “radical” alternative technologies from past or other cultures, self-sustaining agricultural practices, and anti-consumerist mindsets. I also noticed that while it may not have been his primary goal, Beaven discovered some of the same emotional products that Thoreau dissected in his search for a more fulfilling lifestyle. Beaven and his family spent more quality time together, went outside more, got more exercise, and read more as a result of their experiment. They had more time for activities that fulfilled them and brought them closer together as a result of their departure from conformity. Ultimately, however, it seemed impossible for the Beavens to undergo their experiment seamlessly. They ended up having to rely on the kindness of surrounding community members (community members with access to the technology Colin’s experiment banned) in order to continue living realistically.
I have a few questions about No Impact Man but a lot of them revolve around the idea of Beaven’s experiment being radical. Beaven’s experiment was highly publicized and was met with a lot of public reactionary content. There was one critic in particular who suggested that Beaven’s experiment might have been more concerned with widespread attention than actually making change. I don’t think the experiment was some huge attention grab but I do wonder if Colin’s experience would have yielded different results if he wasn’t being filmed and attending talk shows throughout the whole ordeal. Colin’s older gardening mentor suggested that the No Impact Man experiment wasn’t radical enough, because if it was truly radical, the media wouldn’t be so quick to capitalize off of it. I agree that Colin’s experiment was ideal material for media attention but I’m unsure whether that’s because it wasn’t radical enough or because parts of it seemed too impossible to be adopted by the public.
Allison Lehan
In “Sounds” and “Solitude” and the film “No Impact Men” they both take a similar approach. In “Sounds and Solitude” Thoreau pulls away from the rat race of everyday life and focuses on the simple things and pays closer attention to the world around him. While No Impact Man focuses on kind of the same thing but in a modern city, with a family and way more social pressure then “Sounds and Solitude” . Some questions I had was how do you think most people would look at Colin for his lifestyle choices? Does No Impact Man suggest that Thoreau’s ideas about simplicity and awareness still make sense today, or does it show how difficult they are to imply in modern day life?
While watching the film No Impact Man, I found myself drawing comparisons and differences from Walden. Thoreau and Colin Beavan both aspired to live sustainably but in different ways. Thoreau’s decisions to live in a minimalist manner was more for the meaning life and ecological model/impact while Beavan’s attempt of the low impact project was in pursuit for a sustainable lifestyle. Beavans experiment gave a contemporary take on the economy and environment. Throughout the book I admired Thoreau’s dedication and abilities to live simply but I found it sometimes hard to believe that some of his ways were possible in this day and age. On the other hand, the film allowed me to think about more contemporary ways to live sustainably. In the end, Beavan realized the he could not give up everything completely with his lifestyle and the modern day systems in place. Do you think Colin Beavan’s project would’ve exceeded if not in a major city like NYC? Maybe in a different time period? Would the project succeed if Beavan truly connect with nature and the environment like Thoreau did despite living in fast paced NYC?
Kacie Shumate
Watching No Impact Man made me think a lot about Walden’s “Conclusion”. “Conclusion” was a beautifully written chapter that served as Thoreau’s final reflection on his time spent at Walden. In this chapter, Thoreau states that he is leaving the woods because he “had other lives to live”. This, in itself, brough several questions to mind. If Thoreau was in pursuit of personal and spiritual fulfillment at Walden, and supposedly he achieved it, why would he leave? If he achieved peace in this life, out at Walden, why would he give that up to live “other lives”? To further this point, I did a little bit of research on what Thoreau did after Walden. Apparently, he acted worked as a handyman, tutor, lecturer, writer, and at his families pencil factory. This all seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Meanwhile, in No Impact Man, Colin Beavan and his family did their experiment for a year. After the year had ended, they kept a few of their practices, like going to the farmers market, but overall went back to consuming and producing waste (albeit less that they originally did). This made me wonder: is a long term no waste lifestyle even possible in modern society? If someone were to live no-waste for over a year, what would that look like? Would it garner the same amount of attention as Colin Beavan’s experiment?
I guess that question that comes to mind regarding these two subjects is: is it even possible to live a long-term truly self-sustaining, spiritually fulfilling life in the woods like Thoreau? Or a long-term zero-waste, environmentally conscious lifestyle like Beavan? Or are these lifestyles only meant to be short term “experiments” that offer morally superior brief insights?
Heather Adamsky