The component of this film that particularly stood out to me was how the No-Impact-Man stressed that his experiment was not merely an environmental challenge but a philosophical one. Particularly in American society, overconsumption is so normal and routine that it has become encouraged. Our economic model stresses us to buy, buy, buy. I kept thinking about the grocery store Aldi throughout my viewing of this film. Aldi is a German supermarket chain whose business model is predicated on having one option for each product. For example, rather than having eight different brands for sliced American Cheese, they only have one. American supermarkets have tens of different brands/options for each product, with each company trying to get a spot at the table. This is simply not an environmentally sustainable economic model. The No-Impact-Man also mentioned that the majority of human-created waste on an annual basis is via food waste/food packaging trash. If we reduce the number of different types of products and the amount of packaging used to ship them (and the distance from farm-to-plate), then we can begin to tackle the issue of too much waste creation. That was my main takeaway in terms of environmental repercussions. My question to the class would be this: How can we incentivize American society to push out overconsumption as the norm and start prioritizing environmental impact of our production over nurturing capitalism?
One big thing that stood out to me after watching this film was how this couple changed after living without any electricity and not taking the bus or any kind of transportation that involved gas/electricity. I remember them saying it’s hard but they got used to it after a while of doing it. Another thing that really stood out to me from watching No Impact Man was how this couple lived without any electricity, like how they did their laundry for an entire year was so different because they didn’t use dish detergent or a washing machine to do their laundry for an entire year. I feel like after watching this documentary, it was a really good reminder of how much society has us spending a lot of money every day and how much we take for granted. My question is: what other ways could we raise awareness about the environment other than living without electricity for an entire year and then blogging about it?
I’m not sure if our forum is supposed to discuss the movie or the required readings, so I’ll discuss and connect both.
The Sounds chapter is my least favorite chapter I’ve read in the book so far. However, each chapter has several notable quotes, and I write down sentences or paragraphs that are striking. Much of Walden’s writings are beautifully articulated and execute empathetic experiences the reader can relate to. Within the Sounds chapter, Walden discusses how “[the elements of nature would cheerfully accompany men on their errands and be their escort]”. I don’t completely agree with this stance on nature, but I understand his current living situation and period. I don’t know if he was being sarcastic, but cheerful wouldn’t be the adjective I would use. Much of the Sounds chapter reminds me of readings from Environmental Humanities class. There are lots of spiritual, moral, and connecting outlooks towards place and nature.
One of my favorite chapters is Solitude. I relate to this chapter because I live alone. Walden loved being alone, and I do too. However, unlike myself, Walden never found a companion. He thought that “companion was so companionable as solitude,” which is sad. If Walden had found a fitting companion I’d bet he wouldn’t be in the woods, nor so pessimistic and socially disconnected. I care for the house and find housework to be fun, or rather I use reverse psychology on myself. Walden simplified his material possession, which was highlighted in the economy chapter discussing how “[luxuries, comforts, are not merely indispensable, but positive hindrances]”. Walden didn’t want the unnecessary labor of taking care of his possessions because the care imprisoned him, so a little room was enough. I agree with his minimalistic philosophy and practice, and I try my best to conduct it, but it’s difficult. I like my internet, electronics, heating, etc.
The Bean Field was an investing read because Walden discussed agricultural practices, which immediately captured my attention. I’ve raised beans and many other vegetables before and know how they grow, but what astonished me was the price. Walden wrote that “[nine bushels and twelve quarts of beans sold for $16.94]”. I thought to myself man how times have changed. Growing up in my family farmers market, a bushel of beans today would cost roughly $40, while a half would be $20. A pound of beans would cost $7. In 1850, beans were sold in quart jar containers or bartered for other necessities, which Walden also highlighted in the chapter.
No Impact Man should be shown to every student at Appalachian State University. Considering the massive sustainability pillar App successfully endeavors, it would make sense to do so. I greatly enjoyed watching the film, and I understood why the family didn’t cut everything out immediately, which would be traumatic. After the year was over, the family chose to incorporate sustainability into their everyday lives because they were forever changed after that year. Colins family is shown all over the world and people greatly appreciate and negatively criticize his work, which seems expected, but also sad. Colin was right, people don’t want to change their ways and voluntarily live in poverty because of what Walden expresses in his book. People are so consumed with luxuries, comforts, and materialism that they are blinded by true grounding purposes. Humans are meant to be wild and sophisticated while connecting to Mother Earth and her offerings, always borrow and never take.
One perceived difference between the philosophies of Colin “No Impact Man” Beavan and Henry David Thoreau are their seemingly contrary stances on community. In the last few minutes of No Impact Man, Colin states “I believe very strongly that a lot of the environmental problems on our planet have come because of the breakdown of community. Because Without community, none of us feel accountable to anybody else.” Throughout the film, Colin took part in conversations in which his project was challenged and ridiculed. His lifestyle was insulted time and time again, yet he always seemed to reasonably explain his decisions and hold his ground without displaying aggravation. In conversation with his garden-mentor, he was met with an opposition to his lifestyle that he could not reason out of, even seeming to respect the opposition he was met with. It seemed that throughout his project, he gained the admiration and support of more people.
On the contrary, my working impression of Thoreau is that he is a self-absorbed asshole. It seems that he wished to shut out everyone, rather than work alongside anyone. Even in Walden, it feels that he is writing simply to defend his name rather than share his philosophy with others. After all, many of his excerpts have been quite aggressively defensive. I can acknowledge that the motives behind Beavan’s and Thoreau’s ‘off the grid’ living are inherently different based on the time that frames them, but I think their opposing characteristics may paint an image worth noting. I believe that in these times, being socially accepted is becoming increasingly essential to actually making an impact, which likely was not the case in Thoreau’s times.
My question is, do you think that being outwardly confident, patient, and tolerant was essential to the ‘success’ of Beavan’s mission? Do you think that Thoreau may have been more well-received if he was more of a community man? Either way, what takeaways are presented regarding how one’s attitude affects how socially accepted these ‘other’ ways of living are?
The documentary No-Impact-Man shows the very extreme way that a family in New York City has decided to live for a year, a lifestyle devoid of wasteful consumption and harmful polluting practices. They gave up a wide variety of everyday items spanning from avoiding simple waste products like food wrappers to giving up their whole refrigerator. Their year long experiment was incredibly straining on their lifestyles and what they were used to, but they were able to adapt. There are so many things in our lives that we think we cannot live without, but when put in a position in which we cannot keep living that way, we adapt. The wife in the documentary was a shopaholic turned eco friendly pioneer, and shows us that adapting to a cleaner lifestyle is not impossible. Of course there were so many aspects of their experiment that were completely absurd, like living without electricity in New York City, but some aspects were at least somewhat manageable for the modern lifestyle. I think people should look at their lives and see what parts they can experiment with, and figure out what they’re able to live without. How can the general public welcome some ideas brought forth by the Beavens’ experiment into their daily lives, without undergoing the extreme transformations that the family in this experiment did? What are everyday ways we can significantly reduce waste in a meaningful and impactful way?
In the film I really enjoyed how serious and genuine this experiment is being taken. It’s funny how almost immediately after they started they immediately started sort of breaking rules using things or doing things that don’t really comply with their terms like going to Starbucks and taking the train. It’s easy to see how difficult this is to do even if you have all the willpower in the world oftentimes local foods literally may not be very available. As someone who drinks upwards of 400 milligrams of caffeine a day, all of the sudden stopping is very difficult, even exhausting and constantly gives one a headache. So I relate to Michelle in this way and understand how some things can be very difficult to cut out of one’s life. The fact that they did this in New York City is very impressive, they certainly reduced their trash production drastically and as individuals it doesn’t seem like much but if this mindset was taken more broadly it would make a serious difference in country wide trash production. When the New York Times wrote on this project and essentially mocked him and he seemed genuinely disappointed by the reaction and the disregard of this project it was so saddening to me. Instead of people learning and watching with an open mind people chose to bash them and hate on the idea. Everyone Colin talks to sounds so condescending about the idea of even challenging our consumerism as if we can’t live without these pointless things. How do people think humans lived before all of this technology that has created and caused so much harm to the planet and its environment.
My question: How much does one’s ability to live sustainably rely on their geographic location? Would this experiment been easier if it was done in Alaska or Florida? How can we make the general populous less consumer driven and see that it is a pointless endless cycle?
In No Impact Man, we see a family leave behind all modern conveniences to embark on a journey of sustainable living in a similar manner to what is observed in Thoreau’s Walden. There are major differences, however, in the methods and purposes behind these journeys. Colin Beavan’s journey is not one for the self as he ropes his family into the entire process and forces them to conform to his search for what they can “go without”. While Thoreau’s experiment at Walden seems to be more of an independent study of self, Beavan’s feels more fueled by public attention and media, particularly when he bends the rules of the experiment and uses a solar panel gifted to him to power his laptop so that he can easily keep his blog updated. Given these stark differences in experiments that outwardly appear similar, how do you think Thoreau would feel about Beavan’s experiment? What critiques might he have?
-Hadley Tavernier, Ella Holmes, Ciara Gurganus, Sofie Crump
I enjoyed this film for many reasons but one stood out to me the most. We live in a world of complete and utter overconsumption, as others have said in this forum, and I often find myself feeling absolutely helpless when it comes to making a change environmentally. When large industries shove capitalist tendencies down our throats and are mass pollutants on Earth, does it really matter if I decline straws when I go out to eat? The “no-harm man” took such drastic measures to completely change his life, for both philosophical and ecological reasons, and said in the end that everything was open to adjustment. While his partner was less than thrilled about their lifestyle changes, she did find herself feeling healthier and began a pregnancy journey.
In all, this struck me because I couldn’t stop thinking about just how easily attainable this life could be if it became normalized in modern society. What if we all had solar panels on our apartments to power our homes? What if we all consumed foods and drinks from local areas? We would be supporting local economies and local individuals, rather than pumping our energy, money, and faith into corporations with anything but our best interests at heart. It could very easily be done, if society worked together and defunded the norm.
If we worked together to be more sustainable and made ways of living like Colin Beavan more attainable, how much could we accomplish, and how different would our lives REALLY be?
Did Colin take his experiment too far? Did his extreme approach to being sustainable possibly turn people away from the environmental movement? If so, where is the line drawn?
Abby Smith, Jameson O’Hara, Will Bradford, Jack Brion
We found that one connection between Walden and No Impact Man is the act of “voluntary poverty”. What are the class dimensions of voluntary poverty? How much privilege is necessary to participate in such a lifestyle?
How can influencer culture affect contemporary environmental movements? How can trends/fads, especially their short-liveness, impact the effectiveness of sustainable practices? Where do we find the balance in having media to spread the message but not distort the inherent values? How do the figureheads of movements impact the success of community action?
In Walden, Thoreau said that the necessities it takes to live are “Food, shelter, clothing, and fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and prospect of success”(pg.13). Obviously Colin went a little overboard and provided great stress to himself and those around him. He often wrestled with the idea of experiencing happiness while doing this challenge. Thoreau recognized the efficacy of his life in Walden only being this low impact because of its rural locations as he too ran from an urban area to practice this. In a changed world of technology, development, and consumerism are there more necessities we need today or is it still possible to live the way thoreau lived and collin sought? How do we define the base qualities of life and happiness? Finally, Noting the different challenges individuals may face, how can we reintegrate sustainability into the lives of a traditional American household in order to live within means without immense sacrifice to our base of modern necessities.
Tyler Nece, Iona Blackburn, Vincent Spinelli, Kye Harris, Evan Guiney
What is the difference between hate comments from 2007 and 2025?
Would naming the experiment have caused them fewer hate comments? Examples from the film would be “The year I lost 20 pounds without going to the gym once” or “the year my wife and I became better parents to our daughter” instead of “No impact man.”
What is the most effective part of this film—the actual experiment that Colin and his family participated in, or is it the huge fundamental shift in Michelle’s outlook on environmentalism?
Thoreau often pushed to remain free of overconsumption by renouncing family, how did Collin in No Impact Man push away his family to meet the needs of no consumption and how could it lead to isolation like Thoreau?
In the film No Impact Man, Collin often relied on his community connections to refrain from overconsuming. How many having a strong sense of community changes Thoreau’s experience in Walden? Would a stronger reliance on others enhance his experiences?
In No Impact Man, Mr. Beavan documents his year-long experiment to reduce his environmental impact by cutting out modern consumer habits like disposable products, electricity, and excessive waste. Through this personal journey, Beavan critiques consumerism, showing how deeply embedded it is in our daily routines and how it drives environmental degradation. His experience highlights the tension between individual desires and the larger social and environmental consequences of consumption. Beavan’s story isn’t about completely rejecting modern life but rather about making more intentional choices. He challenges us to question what we truly need to live fulfilling lives and encourages a more sustainable, mindful approach to consumption. The experiment serves as a wake-up call to reconsider the costs of overconsumption and its impact on both personal well-being and the planet. How can we begin to implement elements of Beavan’s no-impact lifestyle into our society, especially in a world so reliant on consumer culture?
In the documentary No Impact Man a family takes on a huge lifestyle change as an experiment in which they gave up all the modern comforts which are tied too closely to the necessity for living. In doing so they highlight themes of unneeded luxuries and overconsumption that most people find woven into their everyday lives. I felt this was shown very well when we discovered that the wife is prone to overconsumption though shopping. This made me realize just how much I consume that I could more than likely live without, from adding items to my amazon cart to selecting a few more snacks that were not on the grocery list. However, while these ideas like overconsumption and modern luxuries are properly focal pointed, some parts of this experiment seem egregiously over the top. Living without power in New York City I believe to be a little farther than living below one’s means, and seems like an act of voluntary poverty. In the reach for sustainability and environmental consciousness is there too far? Or is what is demonstrated in this experiment just an adaptation of voluntary poverty, and is doing this or anything close actually possible by the majority of people? While I see the lessons of overconsumption being something that can be tackled by the majority of people, where does this experiment collide with everyday people who are more worried about meeting necessities that they are already tied to? Is this family’s experiment actually sustainable other than the environmental implications, or has this crossed the line and more about taking a jab at people being sedentary in modern luxuries?
The documentary that we watched was titled No-Impact-Man, this documentary follows a Family that lives in New York City while they test a theory for a year, they adapt to a lifestyle that is entirely free of wasteful consumption and attempt to limit the amount of pollution they create. The family has made significant progress in their sacrifices such as eliminating foods that have wrappers on them as they are wasteful and even as far as no longer using their refrigerator. In doing this challenge the family was set to Challenge their daily lives and to come out of their comfort zone in order to learn new ways to live sustainably. This family proved that we tend to assume we can’t live without basic everyday things but after facing in only the use of necessities we are able to adapt and live off less. A very good example that the documentary presents us is with is how the wife in the film heavily struggled with compulsive buying but throughout the film we see her become eco-friendly and ultimately proving that people can transition to a more sustainable way to live. One part of the documentary that almost seemed unachievable was living in New York City without electricity, this was difficult on the family however it was possible and shows that there is a way to adapt to more sustainable ways of life even in one of the busiest cities in America.
Questions: What are some ways the everyday Joe can take ideas from Beaven’s story and make changes in their lives that are fully committed to extremes such as his? What steps can you take to become more sustainable without losing your wants?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
The component of this film that particularly stood out to me was how the No-Impact-Man stressed that his experiment was not merely an environmental challenge but a philosophical one. Particularly in American society, overconsumption is so normal and routine that it has become encouraged. Our economic model stresses us to buy, buy, buy. I kept thinking about the grocery store Aldi throughout my viewing of this film. Aldi is a German supermarket chain whose business model is predicated on having one option for each product. For example, rather than having eight different brands for sliced American Cheese, they only have one. American supermarkets have tens of different brands/options for each product, with each company trying to get a spot at the table. This is simply not an environmentally sustainable economic model. The No-Impact-Man also mentioned that the majority of human-created waste on an annual basis is via food waste/food packaging trash. If we reduce the number of different types of products and the amount of packaging used to ship them (and the distance from farm-to-plate), then we can begin to tackle the issue of too much waste creation. That was my main takeaway in terms of environmental repercussions. My question to the class would be this: How can we incentivize American society to push out overconsumption as the norm and start prioritizing environmental impact of our production over nurturing capitalism?
-Jameson O’Hara
Ciara Gurganus
One big thing that stood out to me after watching this film was how this couple changed after living without any electricity and not taking the bus or any kind of transportation that involved gas/electricity. I remember them saying it’s hard but they got used to it after a while of doing it. Another thing that really stood out to me from watching No Impact Man was how this couple lived without any electricity, like how they did their laundry for an entire year was so different because they didn’t use dish detergent or a washing machine to do their laundry for an entire year. I feel like after watching this documentary, it was a really good reminder of how much society has us spending a lot of money every day and how much we take for granted. My question is: what other ways could we raise awareness about the environment other than living without electricity for an entire year and then blogging about it?
I’m not sure if our forum is supposed to discuss the movie or the required readings, so I’ll discuss and connect both.
The Sounds chapter is my least favorite chapter I’ve read in the book so far. However, each chapter has several notable quotes, and I write down sentences or paragraphs that are striking. Much of Walden’s writings are beautifully articulated and execute empathetic experiences the reader can relate to. Within the Sounds chapter, Walden discusses how “[the elements of nature would cheerfully accompany men on their errands and be their escort]”. I don’t completely agree with this stance on nature, but I understand his current living situation and period. I don’t know if he was being sarcastic, but cheerful wouldn’t be the adjective I would use. Much of the Sounds chapter reminds me of readings from Environmental Humanities class. There are lots of spiritual, moral, and connecting outlooks towards place and nature.
One of my favorite chapters is Solitude. I relate to this chapter because I live alone. Walden loved being alone, and I do too. However, unlike myself, Walden never found a companion. He thought that “companion was so companionable as solitude,” which is sad. If Walden had found a fitting companion I’d bet he wouldn’t be in the woods, nor so pessimistic and socially disconnected. I care for the house and find housework to be fun, or rather I use reverse psychology on myself. Walden simplified his material possession, which was highlighted in the economy chapter discussing how “[luxuries, comforts, are not merely indispensable, but positive hindrances]”. Walden didn’t want the unnecessary labor of taking care of his possessions because the care imprisoned him, so a little room was enough. I agree with his minimalistic philosophy and practice, and I try my best to conduct it, but it’s difficult. I like my internet, electronics, heating, etc.
The Bean Field was an investing read because Walden discussed agricultural practices, which immediately captured my attention. I’ve raised beans and many other vegetables before and know how they grow, but what astonished me was the price. Walden wrote that “[nine bushels and twelve quarts of beans sold for $16.94]”. I thought to myself man how times have changed. Growing up in my family farmers market, a bushel of beans today would cost roughly $40, while a half would be $20. A pound of beans would cost $7. In 1850, beans were sold in quart jar containers or bartered for other necessities, which Walden also highlighted in the chapter.
No Impact Man should be shown to every student at Appalachian State University. Considering the massive sustainability pillar App successfully endeavors, it would make sense to do so. I greatly enjoyed watching the film, and I understood why the family didn’t cut everything out immediately, which would be traumatic. After the year was over, the family chose to incorporate sustainability into their everyday lives because they were forever changed after that year. Colins family is shown all over the world and people greatly appreciate and negatively criticize his work, which seems expected, but also sad. Colin was right, people don’t want to change their ways and voluntarily live in poverty because of what Walden expresses in his book. People are so consumed with luxuries, comforts, and materialism that they are blinded by true grounding purposes. Humans are meant to be wild and sophisticated while connecting to Mother Earth and her offerings, always borrow and never take.
One perceived difference between the philosophies of Colin “No Impact Man” Beavan and Henry David Thoreau are their seemingly contrary stances on community. In the last few minutes of No Impact Man, Colin states “I believe very strongly that a lot of the environmental problems on our planet have come because of the breakdown of community. Because Without community, none of us feel accountable to anybody else.” Throughout the film, Colin took part in conversations in which his project was challenged and ridiculed. His lifestyle was insulted time and time again, yet he always seemed to reasonably explain his decisions and hold his ground without displaying aggravation. In conversation with his garden-mentor, he was met with an opposition to his lifestyle that he could not reason out of, even seeming to respect the opposition he was met with. It seemed that throughout his project, he gained the admiration and support of more people.
On the contrary, my working impression of Thoreau is that he is a self-absorbed asshole. It seems that he wished to shut out everyone, rather than work alongside anyone. Even in Walden, it feels that he is writing simply to defend his name rather than share his philosophy with others. After all, many of his excerpts have been quite aggressively defensive. I can acknowledge that the motives behind Beavan’s and Thoreau’s ‘off the grid’ living are inherently different based on the time that frames them, but I think their opposing characteristics may paint an image worth noting. I believe that in these times, being socially accepted is becoming increasingly essential to actually making an impact, which likely was not the case in Thoreau’s times.
My question is, do you think that being outwardly confident, patient, and tolerant was essential to the ‘success’ of Beavan’s mission? Do you think that Thoreau may have been more well-received if he was more of a community man? Either way, what takeaways are presented regarding how one’s attitude affects how socially accepted these ‘other’ ways of living are?
Carson Mease
The documentary No-Impact-Man shows the very extreme way that a family in New York City has decided to live for a year, a lifestyle devoid of wasteful consumption and harmful polluting practices. They gave up a wide variety of everyday items spanning from avoiding simple waste products like food wrappers to giving up their whole refrigerator. Their year long experiment was incredibly straining on their lifestyles and what they were used to, but they were able to adapt. There are so many things in our lives that we think we cannot live without, but when put in a position in which we cannot keep living that way, we adapt. The wife in the documentary was a shopaholic turned eco friendly pioneer, and shows us that adapting to a cleaner lifestyle is not impossible. Of course there were so many aspects of their experiment that were completely absurd, like living without electricity in New York City, but some aspects were at least somewhat manageable for the modern lifestyle. I think people should look at their lives and see what parts they can experiment with, and figure out what they’re able to live without. How can the general public welcome some ideas brought forth by the Beavens’ experiment into their daily lives, without undergoing the extreme transformations that the family in this experiment did? What are everyday ways we can significantly reduce waste in a meaningful and impactful way?
Caroline Laschinger
In the film I really enjoyed how serious and genuine this experiment is being taken. It’s funny how almost immediately after they started they immediately started sort of breaking rules using things or doing things that don’t really comply with their terms like going to Starbucks and taking the train. It’s easy to see how difficult this is to do even if you have all the willpower in the world oftentimes local foods literally may not be very available. As someone who drinks upwards of 400 milligrams of caffeine a day, all of the sudden stopping is very difficult, even exhausting and constantly gives one a headache. So I relate to Michelle in this way and understand how some things can be very difficult to cut out of one’s life. The fact that they did this in New York City is very impressive, they certainly reduced their trash production drastically and as individuals it doesn’t seem like much but if this mindset was taken more broadly it would make a serious difference in country wide trash production. When the New York Times wrote on this project and essentially mocked him and he seemed genuinely disappointed by the reaction and the disregard of this project it was so saddening to me. Instead of people learning and watching with an open mind people chose to bash them and hate on the idea. Everyone Colin talks to sounds so condescending about the idea of even challenging our consumerism as if we can’t live without these pointless things. How do people think humans lived before all of this technology that has created and caused so much harm to the planet and its environment.
My question: How much does one’s ability to live sustainably rely on their geographic location? Would this experiment been easier if it was done in Alaska or Florida? How can we make the general populous less consumer driven and see that it is a pointless endless cycle?
^written by Will Bradford
In No Impact Man, we see a family leave behind all modern conveniences to embark on a journey of sustainable living in a similar manner to what is observed in Thoreau’s Walden. There are major differences, however, in the methods and purposes behind these journeys. Colin Beavan’s journey is not one for the self as he ropes his family into the entire process and forces them to conform to his search for what they can “go without”. While Thoreau’s experiment at Walden seems to be more of an independent study of self, Beavan’s feels more fueled by public attention and media, particularly when he bends the rules of the experiment and uses a solar panel gifted to him to power his laptop so that he can easily keep his blog updated. Given these stark differences in experiments that outwardly appear similar, how do you think Thoreau would feel about Beavan’s experiment? What critiques might he have?
-Hadley Tavernier, Ella Holmes, Ciara Gurganus, Sofie Crump
I enjoyed this film for many reasons but one stood out to me the most. We live in a world of complete and utter overconsumption, as others have said in this forum, and I often find myself feeling absolutely helpless when it comes to making a change environmentally. When large industries shove capitalist tendencies down our throats and are mass pollutants on Earth, does it really matter if I decline straws when I go out to eat? The “no-harm man” took such drastic measures to completely change his life, for both philosophical and ecological reasons, and said in the end that everything was open to adjustment. While his partner was less than thrilled about their lifestyle changes, she did find herself feeling healthier and began a pregnancy journey.
In all, this struck me because I couldn’t stop thinking about just how easily attainable this life could be if it became normalized in modern society. What if we all had solar panels on our apartments to power our homes? What if we all consumed foods and drinks from local areas? We would be supporting local economies and local individuals, rather than pumping our energy, money, and faith into corporations with anything but our best interests at heart. It could very easily be done, if society worked together and defunded the norm.
If we worked together to be more sustainable and made ways of living like Colin Beavan more attainable, how much could we accomplish, and how different would our lives REALLY be?
-meg misiak
Did Colin take his experiment too far? Did his extreme approach to being sustainable possibly turn people away from the environmental movement? If so, where is the line drawn?
We found that one connection between Walden and No Impact Man is the act of “voluntary poverty”. What are the class dimensions of voluntary poverty? How much privilege is necessary to participate in such a lifestyle?
How can influencer culture affect contemporary environmental movements? How can trends/fads, especially their short-liveness, impact the effectiveness of sustainable practices? Where do we find the balance in having media to spread the message but not distort the inherent values? How do the figureheads of movements impact the success of community action?
In Walden, Thoreau said that the necessities it takes to live are “Food, shelter, clothing, and fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and prospect of success”(pg.13). Obviously Colin went a little overboard and provided great stress to himself and those around him. He often wrestled with the idea of experiencing happiness while doing this challenge. Thoreau recognized the efficacy of his life in Walden only being this low impact because of its rural locations as he too ran from an urban area to practice this. In a changed world of technology, development, and consumerism are there more necessities we need today or is it still possible to live the way thoreau lived and collin sought? How do we define the base qualities of life and happiness? Finally, Noting the different challenges individuals may face, how can we reintegrate sustainability into the lives of a traditional American household in order to live within means without immense sacrifice to our base of modern necessities.
Tyler Nece, Iona Blackburn, Vincent Spinelli, Kye Harris, Evan Guiney
What is the difference between hate comments from 2007 and 2025?
Would naming the experiment have caused them fewer hate comments? Examples from the film would be “The year I lost 20 pounds without going to the gym once” or “the year my wife and I became better parents to our daughter” instead of “No impact man.”
What is the most effective part of this film—the actual experiment that Colin and his family participated in, or is it the huge fundamental shift in Michelle’s outlook on environmentalism?
Parker, Meg, John, Wyatt, Margo
Thoreau often pushed to remain free of overconsumption by renouncing family, how did Collin in No Impact Man push away his family to meet the needs of no consumption and how could it lead to isolation like Thoreau?
In the film No Impact Man, Collin often relied on his community connections to refrain from overconsuming. How many having a strong sense of community changes Thoreau’s experience in Walden? Would a stronger reliance on others enhance his experiences?
Ava, Aura, Conner, Kendall
In No Impact Man, Mr. Beavan documents his year-long experiment to reduce his environmental impact by cutting out modern consumer habits like disposable products, electricity, and excessive waste. Through this personal journey, Beavan critiques consumerism, showing how deeply embedded it is in our daily routines and how it drives environmental degradation. His experience highlights the tension between individual desires and the larger social and environmental consequences of consumption.
Beavan’s story isn’t about completely rejecting modern life but rather about making more intentional choices. He challenges us to question what we truly need to live fulfilling lives and encourages a more sustainable, mindful approach to consumption. The experiment serves as a wake-up call to reconsider the costs of overconsumption and its impact on both personal well-being and the planet.
How can we begin to implement elements of Beavan’s no-impact lifestyle into our society, especially in a world so reliant on consumer culture?
-Fia Mascari
In the documentary No Impact Man a family takes on a huge lifestyle change as an experiment in which they gave up all the modern comforts which are tied too closely to the necessity for living. In doing so they highlight themes of unneeded luxuries and overconsumption that most people find woven into their everyday lives. I felt this was shown very well when we discovered that the wife is prone to overconsumption though shopping. This made me realize just how much I consume that I could more than likely live without, from adding items to my amazon cart to selecting a few more snacks that were not on the grocery list. However, while these ideas like overconsumption and modern luxuries are properly focal pointed, some parts of this experiment seem egregiously over the top. Living without power in New York City I believe to be a little farther than living below one’s means, and seems like an act of voluntary poverty. In the reach for sustainability and environmental consciousness is there too far? Or is what is demonstrated in this experiment just an adaptation of voluntary poverty, and is doing this or anything close actually possible by the majority of people? While I see the lessons of overconsumption being something that can be tackled by the majority of people, where does this experiment collide with everyday people who are more worried about meeting necessities that they are already tied to? Is this family’s experiment actually sustainable other than the environmental implications, or has this crossed the line and more about taking a jab at people being sedentary in modern luxuries?
-Austin Chavez
The documentary that we watched was titled No-Impact-Man, this documentary follows a Family that lives in New York City while they test a theory for a year, they adapt to a lifestyle that is entirely free of wasteful consumption and attempt to limit the amount of pollution they create. The family has made significant progress in their sacrifices such as eliminating foods that have wrappers on them as they are wasteful and even as far as no longer using their refrigerator. In doing this challenge the family was set to Challenge their daily lives and to come out of their comfort zone in order to learn new ways to live sustainably. This family proved that we tend to assume we can’t live without basic everyday things but after facing in only the use of necessities we are able to adapt and live off less. A very good example that the documentary presents us is with is how the wife in the film heavily struggled with compulsive buying but throughout the film we see her become eco-friendly and ultimately proving that people can transition to a more sustainable way to live. One part of the documentary that almost seemed unachievable was living in New York City without electricity, this was difficult on the family however it was possible and shows that there is a way to adapt to more sustainable ways of life even in one of the busiest cities in America.
Questions: What are some ways the everyday Joe can take ideas from Beaven’s story and make changes in their lives that are fully committed to extremes such as his? What steps can you take to become more sustainable without losing your wants?
– Lex Blake