Within the first few minutes of the film, we are seen Colin heckled by several news outlets with humor and being told that he is “radical”. Colin states “I just thought what would it feel like to not hurt the environment…is it possible? is it practical?”
Why is the idea of contributing to the planet in a useful way and attempting to limit your environmental impact “radical” whereas something as simple as recycling is not? Why is it that actions aimed at reducing consumption and living more sustainably are perceived as radical, whereas consumption-driven behaviors are considered the norm? How does the perception of being radical influence people’s willingness to adopt more sustainable lifestyles? Is being radical considered a negative term to you?
Why as American consumers are we immediately provoked into “fight” or judgement whenever we do see someone living by example or making extreme changes to themselves/lifestyle, relationships with others, or relationship with the environment? Additionally, is there a way to create conceivable change rather than extreme drastic changes, so that the habit of reducing can stick in our heavily capitalistic environment?
A major theme in “No Impact Man” is the relationship between Colin and Michelle, (husband and wife) as well as the relationships between them and their child. Conflicts arise in terms of childcare, prioirities in the marriage, and how to approach the experiment as a collective. Thoreau, on the other hand, had no dependents and therefore had no interests to fulfill aside from his own. Michelle had to bear the brunt of taking on another person’s journey of self indulgence and fulfillment while parenting her young child. Would having dependents in an environment/experiment like this present an obstacle to taking valuable lessons away? Was the dad, Colin, more capable of taking away valuable lessons than Michelle? Could Thoreau have learned more if he had dependents/a family to convince of his lifestyle and spiritual values? Or was having a family a hinderance to fully experiencing this “voluntary poverty”?
A big difference between the two experiments was how many people were invested/involved in the experiment. For Thoreau, it was only himself, with only himself to control. For the family, there were three people, each with differing views of what qualifies the good life.
How do you think the number of people involved in such an experiment changes it? Are there benefits to having more people? Is this even possible? What role does age play in your view of what necessities are needed. The child seemed to have an easier time adjusting to the new life in New York, what can we learn from this?
Do you think the messages from the book and the film could be used by big corporations to further the narrative that individuals are responsible for the bulk of climate change?
In both Walden and No Impact Man, Thoreau and Beaven both carry out temporary experiments on what it is like to live simply. Though both were done at very different times with very different definitions of living simply, the message is the same: living with less material items is both good for yourself and the environment. While this may be inspirational to people, do you think this message could be harmfully in that it could be purposefully misconstrued by big corporations to further the narrative that individuals are the ones responsible for the bulk of climate change? Another similarity is that both experiments seemed to be kind of performative in that both were very temporary and used to create a book and a film. This leads the audience to wonder where Thoreau and the Beaven family ended up after their respective experiments. Did they keep living by the values they preached? If they did not, what are the possible implications? Does it make the message cheap?
In our group we discussed the extreme nature of both the Walden experiment and the No Impact Man experiment. Both experiments, however, occurred in very different settings, Walden pond in the mid 1840’s and New York City in the mid 2000’s. Our discussion revolved around the fact that due to the capitalist and consumerist nature of modern day America, there are many more luxuries and comforts of life now than there were in the world that Thoreau lived in, resulting in much more to give up in order to live simply. While it was really interesting to see how little humans actually need to lead a fulfilled life, the extreme lengths that the the Beaven family went to to achieve zero waste can be both praised and critiqued. For one, the patriarch of the Beaven family was adamant about achieving true sustainability, yet neglected to acknowledge the way feminism and women’s roles in society can help shape a more sustainable society.
Although both Colin and Thoreau take a very self-centered, individualistic approach, Thoreau was affecting only himself with his experiment, while Colin Beaven implicated his family as well. The conflict observed between the Beaven family in the film sparked the question of how much is too much, or rather, how little is too little? Living simply, or in voluntary poverty for the purpose of promoting sustainable lifestyles is extremely valuable, however can you go too far? Would more families or individuals be willing to adopt a simplistic, non-consumerist lifestyle if they were still guaranteed “comforts” like toilet paper, running water, or electricity? Additionally, what would create a greater positive impact: If many people adopted a few aspects of “voluntary poverty” or if a few people adopted a completely zero impact lifestyle?
In the film “No Impact Man”, it stood out to us that being no impact in a city requires more determination than living on your own land. Not only does it lack accessibility to sustainable options, but they also received harsh criticism from the public. However, the family was also able to buy food and dairy from local farmers markets. The Beaven family broke down their previous life to create something that they felt was more sustainable. In some ways they are similar, but different to how Thoreau built up his individual life to achieve a sustainable lifestyle. Do you believe it would it be more impactful to built up sustainability or break away from the unsustainable aspects of your life?
Thoreau and The Beaven family both lived a simplistic lifestyle. Only needed the fundamentals for survival and knowing where their food comes from.
They both existed on the outskirts of society, integrated yet seperate.
Use of documentation of their experiences and journey.
Discussion Question:
When seeing both the experiences of Thoreau through his book Walden and also The No Impact Man, they were both criticized. Our groups question is who had a worse or harsher judgement? As well as Why is Thoreau labeled a philosopher but No Impact Man a psycho? And what might have been the aftermath of Thoreau publishing Walden?
In No Impact Man we see Colin and his family attempt to leave as little footprint as possible within a cityscape. Although they attempt to shop local, cut out electricity, and even cut out refrigeration, we see challenges arise: no food can be grown within the city besides at a tiny community garden, candlelight was their only light source in a concrete box of an apartment, and Michelle still worked a corporate job to sustain them.
Thoreau was able to approach the issues of sustainability through a lens of transcendental naturalism in an area, unlike New York City, of lower population density with hardly any man-made structures besides his own. These two experiments are challenging a similar issue but are conducted from entirely different contexts.
Our questions revolve around the paradoxical nature of sustainability within a large city. Can true sustainability exist within a large city? What would have to change about a city for it to be sustainable? The people / consumers? The legislation? Do you think publicity acts of example contribute meaningfully to the sustainability cause in cities? What power do we have as consumers to collectivize and create genuine change from the bottom-up in urban environments?
Why don’t we do something? Is Walden a narrative on what could happen if we did something, or tried to on our own? Is any action going to take place from an individual alone?
Group 1: Grady Vardeman, Jason Schlachtun, and Kendall Williamson
Thoreau expressed the Importance of living in harmony with the environment and understanding the rhythms of the natural world connected to the film as when they showed the turning over of the garden. This showed the connection that is usually disrupted because were able to get what we want when we want, although this is not true without the extraction of goods from other places
Self-Sufficiency: Thoreau: Embraced a lifestyle of simplicity and self-sufficiency, relying on local resources. No impact man encourages practices such as growing and buying food locally, reducing dependence on external resources, and embracing a simpler lifestyle.
Advocacy for Change: Thoreau: Expressed his views through writings like “Walden” and essays, advocating for a shift in societal values. No impact man Involves not only individual lifestyle choices but also activism he said if you could only do one thing it would be the volunteer. It’s about seeing what you can live about and he knew some things were extreme (electricity) but he still wanted to test it
If impact man was set in a different location how would things change? Makes things easier, what would be harder? Are there some locations that would be easier to do? How does No Impact Man demonstrate the limitations Thoreau’s experiment and philosophy would face in the modern age? How was the experiment in No Impact Man hindered or assisted by the family’s location in NYC? What would be considered a necessity to Thoreau in 2024? Would he be willing to accept new advancements or would he just dismiss them all together?
We talked a lot about the positions, attitudes, and intended audiences of Thoreau and Colin and Michelle in No Impact Man. Both Thoreau and Colin come from educated, upper-middle class backgrounds and “simplify, simplify” their lives to confront trends of over-consumption, modernization, and what really counts as true necessities versus luxuries.
Thoreau writes about how people can get away with doing less work and live more fully, and Collin’s motivations are environmental. Both end up doing more physical labor but both argue that they get satisfaction from the intentionality of the work – or at least some of it. By giving up conveniences like refrigeration, Collin increases how often he needs to get food but through that process – and by giving up things like TV – Collin and Michelle both claimed to be spending and enjoying much more time outside.
Many people are frustrated by the positions of privilege and apparent conceitedness of Thoreau and Collin. Both write to the general public as an audience. They both explicitly state that they don’t expect people to follow their path exactly, but hope that they can show that alternatives to the status quo (of consumption, trends, superficiality, modern complexity) are possible and feasible. In No Impact man, Collin’s purposeful journey to the extremes (cutting out electricity entirely, forgoing toilet paper) was sensationalized and many seemed to miss the point of going to such extremes – to show it’s possible and to open the door to interrogate one’s own consumption.
That being said, Collin and Thoreau operated under special circumstances – Thoreau had free access to land from his wealthy friend. Collin and Michelle’s family was being supported by Michelle’s corporate payroll which plays into the system that perpetuates mass consumption which they tried to avoid. Collin espoused the benefits of free time outside of the apartment but had the benefit of not needing to commute a long distance to a job where transportation such as a subway is not luxury – but necessity to pay rent and afford the necessities of life – Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel.
Could Collin or Thoreau have modified their message to apply or appeal to a broader audience, or is it the virtue of their experiments to be an example in extremes – to show that it is possible to live in a way that may be considered “impertinent” or cause outrage? By proving the extremes of simplicity are possible, do they encourage people to move towards the path of simplicity or do they dissuade them?
Thoreau and Beaven both embrace a simplistic lifestyle, advocating for self-sufficiency, reduced consumption, and a more sustainable existence. They explore the challenges and benefits os doing such and consider the influence of location, family dynamics, societal judgments, and the potential impact on broader environmental awareness. 
Discussion question:
How does the perception of individual actions for sustainability differ when in a rural setting like Thoreau’s compared to an urban environment?
What challenges and opportunities do each present?
During the film “No Impact Man” there are many differences between the experiment in comparison to the Thoreau’s. This can be seen in the way that Colin made his entire family follow this. In thoreau’s it was only him, this is a big difference even though it seems quite insignificant. This is due to the fact that with three people there are three people with very different views on what they want and need in their life. For Thoreau, he only had concerns for himself for the most part, he didn’t have to be too concerned about his choices and the effects on others.
How would the differences between the two experiments impact the each other if the circumstances were flipped?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Within the first few minutes of the film, we are seen Colin heckled by several news outlets with humor and being told that he is “radical”. Colin states “I just thought what would it feel like to not hurt the environment…is it possible? is it practical?”
Why is the idea of contributing to the planet in a useful way and attempting to limit your environmental impact “radical” whereas something as simple as recycling is not? Why is it that actions aimed at reducing consumption and living more sustainably are perceived as radical, whereas consumption-driven behaviors are considered the norm? How does the perception of being radical influence people’s willingness to adopt more sustainable lifestyles? Is being radical considered a negative term to you?
Group Question:
Kendall/Opal/Mary Ann/McKinzie
Why as American consumers are we immediately provoked into “fight” or judgement whenever we do see someone living by example or making extreme changes to themselves/lifestyle, relationships with others, or relationship with the environment? Additionally, is there a way to create conceivable change rather than extreme drastic changes, so that the habit of reducing can stick in our heavily capitalistic environment?
Group 2 – Shae Schmalzbauer, Ren, Carter, Ellen
A major theme in “No Impact Man” is the relationship between Colin and Michelle, (husband and wife) as well as the relationships between them and their child. Conflicts arise in terms of childcare, prioirities in the marriage, and how to approach the experiment as a collective. Thoreau, on the other hand, had no dependents and therefore had no interests to fulfill aside from his own. Michelle had to bear the brunt of taking on another person’s journey of self indulgence and fulfillment while parenting her young child. Would having dependents in an environment/experiment like this present an obstacle to taking valuable lessons away? Was the dad, Colin, more capable of taking away valuable lessons than Michelle? Could Thoreau have learned more if he had dependents/a family to convince of his lifestyle and spiritual values? Or was having a family a hinderance to fully experiencing this “voluntary poverty”?
Group 6 discussion
1/30
Malcolm Vaughn, Alena Dastur, Mary Quinn Fullwood
A big difference between the two experiments was how many people were invested/involved in the experiment. For Thoreau, it was only himself, with only himself to control. For the family, there were three people, each with differing views of what qualifies the good life.
How do you think the number of people involved in such an experiment changes it? Are there benefits to having more people? Is this even possible? What role does age play in your view of what necessities are needed. The child seemed to have an easier time adjusting to the new life in New York, what can we learn from this?
sam, samia, nicole, and ginger
Do you think the messages from the book and the film could be used by big corporations to further the narrative that individuals are responsible for the bulk of climate change?
(Edit bc we ran out of time in class)
In both Walden and No Impact Man, Thoreau and Beaven both carry out temporary experiments on what it is like to live simply. Though both were done at very different times with very different definitions of living simply, the message is the same: living with less material items is both good for yourself and the environment. While this may be inspirational to people, do you think this message could be harmfully in that it could be purposefully misconstrued by big corporations to further the narrative that individuals are the ones responsible for the bulk of climate change? Another similarity is that both experiments seemed to be kind of performative in that both were very temporary and used to create a book and a film. This leads the audience to wonder where Thoreau and the Beaven family ended up after their respective experiments. Did they keep living by the values they preached? If they did not, what are the possible implications? Does it make the message cheap?
Group 4 Discussion:
In our group we discussed the extreme nature of both the Walden experiment and the No Impact Man experiment. Both experiments, however, occurred in very different settings, Walden pond in the mid 1840’s and New York City in the mid 2000’s. Our discussion revolved around the fact that due to the capitalist and consumerist nature of modern day America, there are many more luxuries and comforts of life now than there were in the world that Thoreau lived in, resulting in much more to give up in order to live simply. While it was really interesting to see how little humans actually need to lead a fulfilled life, the extreme lengths that the the Beaven family went to to achieve zero waste can be both praised and critiqued. For one, the patriarch of the Beaven family was adamant about achieving true sustainability, yet neglected to acknowledge the way feminism and women’s roles in society can help shape a more sustainable society.
Although both Colin and Thoreau take a very self-centered, individualistic approach, Thoreau was affecting only himself with his experiment, while Colin Beaven implicated his family as well. The conflict observed between the Beaven family in the film sparked the question of how much is too much, or rather, how little is too little? Living simply, or in voluntary poverty for the purpose of promoting sustainable lifestyles is extremely valuable, however can you go too far? Would more families or individuals be willing to adopt a simplistic, non-consumerist lifestyle if they were still guaranteed “comforts” like toilet paper, running water, or electricity? Additionally, what would create a greater positive impact: If many people adopted a few aspects of “voluntary poverty” or if a few people adopted a completely zero impact lifestyle?
Sophie Griengl-Schott
Anna Peters
Shea Adair
Audrey Mase
 Ella, Anne Elise, Carlos, Taylor
Three points of connection:
Discussion Question:
In the film “No Impact Man”, it stood out to us that being no impact in a city requires more determination than living on your own land. Not only does it lack accessibility to sustainable options, but they also received harsh criticism from the public. However, the family was also able to buy food and dairy from local farmers markets. The Beaven family broke down their previous life to create something that they felt was more sustainable. In some ways they are similar, but different to how Thoreau built up his individual life to achieve a sustainable lifestyle. Do you believe it would it be more impactful to built up sustainability or break away from the unsustainable aspects of your life?
Group: Heather, Alissa, Abby, Kadin
Karissa S., Samantha C., Kendall W., Winifred R.
Three Points of Connection:
Discussion Question:
Group 5: Joe, Alex, Faye, Colby, Maddy
In No Impact Man we see Colin and his family attempt to leave as little footprint as possible within a cityscape. Although they attempt to shop local, cut out electricity, and even cut out refrigeration, we see challenges arise: no food can be grown within the city besides at a tiny community garden, candlelight was their only light source in a concrete box of an apartment, and Michelle still worked a corporate job to sustain them.
Thoreau was able to approach the issues of sustainability through a lens of transcendental naturalism in an area, unlike New York City, of lower population density with hardly any man-made structures besides his own. These two experiments are challenging a similar issue but are conducted from entirely different contexts.
Our questions revolve around the paradoxical nature of sustainability within a large city. Can true sustainability exist within a large city? What would have to change about a city for it to be sustainable? The people / consumers? The legislation? Do you think publicity acts of example contribute meaningfully to the sustainability cause in cities? What power do we have as consumers to collectivize and create genuine change from the bottom-up in urban environments?
“But one of the things I’ve always been weak on as a liberal is individual action. Like why do I have to wait for Congress to do something? Why do I have to wait for big business to do something? Why don’t I do something?”
Why don’t we do something? Is Walden a narrative on what could happen if we did something, or tried to on our own? Is any action going to take place from an individual alone?
Group 1: Grady Vardeman, Jason Schlachtun, and Kendall Williamson
Thoreau expressed the Importance of living in harmony with the environment and understanding the rhythms of the natural world connected to the film as when they showed the turning over of the garden. This showed the connection that is usually disrupted because were able to get what we want when we want, although this is not true without the extraction of goods from other places
Self-Sufficiency: Thoreau: Embraced a lifestyle of simplicity and self-sufficiency, relying on local resources. No impact man encourages practices such as growing and buying food locally, reducing dependence on external resources, and embracing a simpler lifestyle.
Advocacy for Change: Thoreau: Expressed his views through writings like “Walden” and essays, advocating for a shift in societal values. No impact man Involves not only individual lifestyle choices but also activism he said if you could only do one thing it would be the volunteer. It’s about seeing what you can live about and he knew some things were extreme (electricity) but he still wanted to test it
If impact man was set in a different location how would things change? Makes things easier, what would be harder? Are there some locations that would be easier to do? How does No Impact Man demonstrate the limitations Thoreau’s experiment and philosophy would face in the modern age? How was the experiment in No Impact Man hindered or assisted by the family’s location in NYC? What would be considered a necessity to Thoreau in 2024? Would he be willing to accept new advancements or would he just dismiss them all together?
Group 3
We talked a lot about the positions, attitudes, and intended audiences of Thoreau and Colin and Michelle in No Impact Man. Both Thoreau and Colin come from educated, upper-middle class backgrounds and “simplify, simplify” their lives to confront trends of over-consumption, modernization, and what really counts as true necessities versus luxuries.
Thoreau writes about how people can get away with doing less work and live more fully, and Collin’s motivations are environmental. Both end up doing more physical labor but both argue that they get satisfaction from the intentionality of the work – or at least some of it. By giving up conveniences like refrigeration, Collin increases how often he needs to get food but through that process – and by giving up things like TV – Collin and Michelle both claimed to be spending and enjoying much more time outside.
Many people are frustrated by the positions of privilege and apparent conceitedness of Thoreau and Collin. Both write to the general public as an audience. They both explicitly state that they don’t expect people to follow their path exactly, but hope that they can show that alternatives to the status quo (of consumption, trends, superficiality, modern complexity) are possible and feasible. In No Impact man, Collin’s purposeful journey to the extremes (cutting out electricity entirely, forgoing toilet paper) was sensationalized and many seemed to miss the point of going to such extremes – to show it’s possible and to open the door to interrogate one’s own consumption.
That being said, Collin and Thoreau operated under special circumstances – Thoreau had free access to land from his wealthy friend. Collin and Michelle’s family was being supported by Michelle’s corporate payroll which plays into the system that perpetuates mass consumption which they tried to avoid. Collin espoused the benefits of free time outside of the apartment but had the benefit of not needing to commute a long distance to a job where transportation such as a subway is not luxury – but necessity to pay rent and afford the necessities of life – Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel.
Could Collin or Thoreau have modified their message to apply or appeal to a broader audience, or is it the virtue of their experiments to be an example in extremes – to show that it is possible to live in a way that may be considered “impertinent” or cause outrage? By proving the extremes of simplicity are possible, do they encourage people to move towards the path of simplicity or do they dissuade them?
Erik Olson
Thoreau and Beaven both embrace a simplistic lifestyle, advocating for self-sufficiency, reduced consumption, and a more sustainable existence. They explore the challenges and benefits os doing such and consider the influence of location, family dynamics, societal judgments, and the potential impact on broader environmental awareness. 
Discussion question:
How does the perception of individual actions for sustainability differ when in a rural setting like Thoreau’s compared to an urban environment?
What challenges and opportunities do each present?
-Emily Duhon
During the film “No Impact Man” there are many differences between the experiment in comparison to the Thoreau’s. This can be seen in the way that Colin made his entire family follow this. In thoreau’s it was only him, this is a big difference even though it seems quite insignificant. This is due to the fact that with three people there are three people with very different views on what they want and need in their life. For Thoreau, he only had concerns for himself for the most part, he didn’t have to be too concerned about his choices and the effects on others.
How would the differences between the two experiments impact the each other if the circumstances were flipped?
-Keagan Northcott