In the film “No Impact Man” Colin struggles with whether or not his experiment is actually relevant or will have an impact past its end point. Furthermore, he has to grapple with constant criticism from the media, and even other environmentalists. In one segment, Colin reads some criticism from an environmentalist who says “people like you give us all a bad name.” Why do you think this critique perceives Colin’s experiment as giving environmentalists and the environmental movement a bad name? Do you think this has any broader implications on larger themes, such as the heavily political nature of modern society (i.e. politics as power)?
Furthermore, Colin brings up his own questions throughout the film. In particular he asks if we have to be a disposable culture and if it is possible for humans to live on the planet doing more good than harm to nature. One of the critiques to his goals and experiment is the gardener, Mayer, who lets Colin help out on his plot in the community garden. Mayer says that because corporate American capitalism is so prevalent and pushed by media, that Colin’s experiment might lure people into a false sense of security about their own actions (i.e. ‘I only have to recycle to do my part’). Do you think there is a way to live sustainably in a corporate capitalistic society? If not, how can the “brainwashing” of the virtue of corporate capitalism be ended and replaced with a more sustainable system?
“people like you give us all a bad name” really stuck with me also, during President Bush’s term it was very American to consume away.I found it odd how much resistance the Beavan family received from the media, how anyone could be upset with someone trying to make a positive difference. Maybe both parties had strong ulterior motives.
I was also intrigued by the backlash the Beavan family received and why so many people were critical of what was essentially just one family’s experiment of will- you can easily draw a comparison from their short-term “experiment” to Thoreau’s short-term “experiment” which begs the question of why Thoreau is so heavily lauded but the Beavan family was so heavily criticized. I could understand why some people were claiming Colin’s outspokenness about his project was “making the look bad” because it certainly was a more extreme way of going about environmentalism and due to its publicity it would garner a lot more attention than more mainstream activist’s calls, becoming the face for a movement that, in their opinion, the project did not accurately represent. If everyone started to associate “environmentalism” with having to give up their electricity, air conditioning/heating, and toilet paper, a lot more people would be averse to the movement as a whole. In this sense, it is understandable that environmentalists were concerned about their work and efforts would become trivialized.
I’m glad you brought up Mayer because I think his argument was one of the more profound ones in the documentary and yet received such a limited amount of time. He pointed out the profound hypocrisy of their family doing this project but that Michelle was working for Newsweek, a corporation which actively fuels American capitalism and undeniably produces more waste than the Beavan family could ever eliminate. I am still conflicted about the extent to which we can live sustainably within a reformed capitalistic system but I think that this documentary may have further solidified my position that personal modifications will never be sufficient in the face of corporate greed.
I was also really interested in why the Beavans received so much backlash. I today’s society, there is a heavy push for tolerance and I would think that the people who use that as one of their platforms would be more receptive to the kind of experiment that the Beavan family did. I wonder if the Beavan family got so much negativity, yet Thoreau didn’t is because not that many people aren’t as familiar with his experiment at Walden, thus making the Beavan family look like social outcasts
I found the Beavan family’s experiment to be more self-serving than Colin cared to admit. While it is important that individuals do what they can to live more sustainably, I feel like Colin was doing it more for applause than to make an actual difference. Colin said he was very concerned about “collective action” yet he wasn’t even able to have open-ended conversations with his wife on what they would like their experiment to look like. Considering how he forced this lifestyle onto his family, I wonder how successful he would be at participating in real democratic grassroots collective action he speaks of. The mainstream environmental movement is overwhelmingly white, male, straight, upperclass and too concerned with the separation of nature and culture. By playing into these stereotypes of environmentalism, his exercise doesn’t do much to change the narrative or invite more people into the movement.
Reducing consumptive habits and rejecting capitalistic logic is certainly a virtuous exercise, but thousands of people do this everyday without having a documentary crew follow them around as if they are doing something entirely new. It is important to note that there is no way to ethically consume in a capitalist society, because someone is always exploited in the chain of production. I agree with Mayer that reducing one’s own consumption is admirable but without organizing collective around the issues of disposability in our culture, it doesn’t really create lasting change and could cause people to become complacent with their own individual actions. Individualism is one of the key components of Capitalism after all.
In “Spring”, Thoreau writes, “Who would have suspected so large and cold and think-skinned a thing to be so sensitive? Yet it has its law to which thunders obedience when it should as surely as the buds expand in the spring. The earth is all alive and covered with papillae. The largest pond is as sensitive to atmospheric changes as the globule of mercury in its tube.” (322). This not only represents a scientific outlook on the pond, but Thoreau also leaves us with a metaphorical question. Nevertheless, throughout this chapter Thoreau comments on the law of nature, and it is clear that the thawing of the pond is following this law. As the pond thaws, it shows life. This depicts how nature changes throughout the season and how spring represents new life. Yet I can’t help but think about how Thoreau used the word “sensitive” more than once. This makes me think about how sensitive nature is to change and how sensitive it is to human impact. The pond thaws slowly, just as nature replenishes its resources slowly. Nature cannot keep up with human impact. Because of this, I think about climate change. More specifically, Thoreau makes a point of how sensitive the pond is to the atmospheric changes, because of this it makes the impacts of climate change and human activity even more noticeable. Nevertheless, my question is, is there a way to prevent these sensitivities, even if it may be natural? How might the law of nature be affected by atmospheric changes, such as climate change?
In “Solitude”, Thoreau writes about his opinion on human interaction. He explains that society is too cheap. We all live by rules and etiquette, and suffocate each other with all of this interaction. I found this section very interesting. It makes me wonder why we continue to follow these odd unspoken rules of etiquette, when most of us don’t even want to follow them. We are expected to be polite all the time and follow the boundaries of society, but why do we continue to do so when most of us would prefer not to? Thoreau’s solution to this exhaustion of constant cheap human interaction was very interesting to me. He states that “it would be better if there were but one inhabitant to a square mile, as where I live. The value of a man is not in his skin, that we should touch him.” If we were all to live alone, but one square mile from each other, I wonder how human relationships would change? How would human relationships with nature change? Humans are very social creatures, but Thoreau believes that we would be better off in solitude. If we all follow Thoreau’s model of society, how would this change our attitude towards each other? Would it be for the better, or would it be unhealthy to spend so much time in solitude?
Bonnie, I really like the thought experiment you propose. As an introvert, it definitely sounds appealing in some ways. And as Thoreau says in Solitude, this might make us value our interactions with people even more. I’m sure this would lead to a lot more introspection, thoughtfulness, and quiet. However, I am kind of averse to this suggestion by Thoreau. I feel that my greatest relationships occur with those who I spend ample time with. When I don’t need to spend our entire conversation catching up with each other, we can move on to our thoughts about life, the world, and more. Also, while introspection can teach us a lot, I think there is just as much, if not more to learn from interacting with people and bouncing our thoughts and ideas off of each other. If anything, I think we should re-evaluate the social norms of socialization that Thoreau dislikes so much. We should learn to relate in more intimate, personal ways. But I also think that is a personal belief, and we could (and do) have places where people live a mile apart, while we also have places where people voluntarily live right on top of each other.
Great question! The unspoken etiquette of cultures feels restrictive to those who don’t aspire to fit into the set parameters. Examining the historical contexts of “outcasts,” “weirdos,” and-especially for environmentalists and social justice warriors-“terrorists” has educated us on how/where structural violence exists in societies: in the hands of the white, wealthy men. So, I think that solitude is excellent for freedom, self-expression, and spiritual (or poetic) growth but as structural violence continues to exist, it might still be the outcast’s duty to exist in a collective or divided community.
Bonnie, I have been thinking about these questions a lot as well! I consider myself a bit more introverted, and enjoy time in solitude, but I also know people who genuinely thrive off of spending time with others. I also tend to think that Western culture is very individualistic, which can be seen in Thoreau’s work. It is especially evident in many of the issues that the US is facing with the pandemic, like people refusing to wear masks. I also admire cultures that are very family and community oriented, and think there is a lot of benefits to living in a society that places high value on relationships. I also relate to what Michael wrote, about relating in different ways, rather than checking the boxes of proper etiquette, however, I also think that this change may be happening with younger generations. This makes me wonder, is Thoreau’s preaching of solitude Eurocentric in a way?
I love this question. Especially considering the recent quarantine, many of us have spent a lot of time in solitude and have had time to be more introspective. I find myself analyzing how people socially interact and the need for social interaction more often now. I think this quote from Thoreau sums things up very well: ““I have found that no exertion of the legs can bring two minds much nearer to one another.” (133) I don’t believe Thoreau thinks it to be absolutely necessary to be in close proximity to one another because you can be physically close to people but very distant from them mentally. When you are in mental solitude but in physical company, people can seem like more of a burden or a distraction to you. At another point in the chapter, he talks about how someone who works and is busy with their hands all-day does not feel alone but as soon as he returns home at night he doesn’t know how to bare the time alone with themselves. Yet, a student can be alone all day studying yet not feel lonely because they are in company with their books. I think one’s attitude about solidarity depends on your state of mind at any given moment. Personally, I don’t think humans were made to live completely alone. To me, it’s quite selfish to purposefully withdraw from community and not want to share with people, help one another, and be there for the ones you love. I think Thoreau was very privileged to be able to do this experiment and his take on the necessity for self-sufficiency is kind of ableist at times. Though he may have the physical and mental capability to be self-sufficient, others might not have that luxury. It’s discriminatory to say that community need not be a necessity for some people.
Within “The Bean Field” Thoreau discusses the struggles and successes that he had while farming near Walden Pond. In a particular section of this chapter, Thoreau writes; “Reader, that the seeds which I planted, if indeed they were the seeds of those virtues, were worm-eaten or had lost their vitality, and so did not come up. Commonly men will only be brave as their fathers were brave, or timid. This generation is very sure to plant corn and beans each new year precisely as the Indians did centuries ago and taught the first settlers to do, as if there were a fate in it” (Thoreau, 134). Thoreau is thus drawing an analogy of the ways in which society takes care of seed but does not put as much thought into how the individual should grow. While Thoreau acknowledges that this is a way in which society works, he still would likely argue that it rests upon the individuals within society to change it. Perhaps he is suggesting that individuals need to not concern themselves so much with progress, but rather have growth within themselves. Could or would Thoreau suggest that a slow-growth economy and society is a better one? What would he think about some of the ideas in today’s society such as degrowth? What is the best way to achieve this, according to Thoreau?
Within “The Bean Field” Thoreau discusses the struggles and successes that he had while farming near Walden Pond. In a particular section of this chapter, Thoreau writes; “Reader, that the seeds which I planted, if indeed they were the seeds of those virtues, were worm-eaten or had lost their vitality, and so did not come up. Commonly men will only be brave as their fathers were brave, or timid. This generation is very sure to plant corn and beans each new year precisely as the Indians did centuries ago and taught the first settlers to do, as if there were a fate in it” (Thoreau, 134). Thoreau is thus drawing an analogy of the ways in which society takes care of seed but does not put as much thought into how the individual should grow. While Thoreau acknowledges that this is a way in which society works, he still would likely argue that it rests upon the individuals within society to change it. Perhaps he is suggesting that individuals need to not concern themselves so much with progress, but rather have growth within themselves. Could or would Thoreau suggest that a slow-growth economy and society is a better one? What would he think about some of the ideas in today’s society such as degrowth? What is the best way to achieve this, according to Thoreau?
In the documentary “No Impact Man”, Colin attempts to live an entire year without producing any waste or harming the environment in any way. For a large portion of the experiment, Colin’s wife Michelle struggles with not being able to purchase any material things or consume coffee for the year, but eventually becomes comfortable and actually ends up enjoying the experiment in the end. The change in diet and increase in exercise dramatically improved her health and she became happier and began to appreciate nature, community, and her set of values were completely transformed. In the beginning Michelle hated nature and was completely against even starting the experiment, but we can see her attitude towards it completely change. Looking at the way Michelle’s view of the experiment was so drastically different from start to finish, If our society completely shifted its habits and attitudes regarding environmental issues and way of life was transformed in many ways, would this eventually become the new standard and be widely accepted? Would it actually be successful despite the fact that consumerism, greed, and individualism is engrained into American culture?
Cortney, I like the question you posed and I have been wondering similar things since viewing “No Impact Man.” To me, Michelle represents a more realistic perspective in America. What I mean is that while Colin’s ideals are noble and good for the earth and even line up with what a typical SD student may believe, he seems like a far reach for the average American. Michelle, however, is more approachable because she is honest with the audience about where she lies with her convictions, and throughout the documentary we get to watch those convictions change. I don’t think a complete shift of habits and attitudes would be entirely accepted and successful because of the way consumerism and the way of life Americans now have is so deeply engrained. However, I do think that Michelle is an inspiration that can connect to a typical American who is not already engaged in environmental issues because she is more relatable and shows us that it is possible to change and you don’t have to be already extremely committed to environmentalism to even try. The question I have is based on Michelle’s transformation throughout “No Impact Man,” how does this show us how to connect to and reach people who don’t share our same views about environmentalism and other issues?
Cortney, I like the question you posed and I have been wondering similar things since viewing “No Impact Man.” To me, Michelle represents a more realistic perspective in America. What I mean is that while Colin’s ideals are noble and good for the earth and even line up with what a typical SD student may believe, he seems like a far reach for the average American. Michelle, however, is more approachable because she is honest with the audience about where she lies with her convictions, and throughout the documentary we get to watch those convictions change. I don’t think a complete shift of habits and attitudes would be entirely accepted and successful because of the way consumerism and the way of life Americans now have is so deeply engrained. However, I do think that Michelle is an inspiration that can connect to a typical American who is not already engaged in environmental issues because she is more relatable and shows us that it is possible to change and you don’t have to be already extremely committed to environmentalism to even try. The question I have is based on Michelle’s transformation throughout “No Impact Man,” how does this show us how to connect to and reach people who don’t share our same views about environmentalism and other issues?
In “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For,” Thoreau says “we must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep” (Thoreau, Walden 65). What is the significance of being awake for Thoreau and what does it mean to be truly awake for him? Right before this passage he also says that he has not met someone who was so awake, what doe he mean by this? He also states the importance of being awake early in the morning and states “all memorable events, I should say, transpire in morning time and in a morning atmosphere” (Thoreau, Walden). Why does he value the morning time and what does it mean to him?
The film “No Impact Man” follows the year long journey of an environmentalist writer and his family living in New York City. Colin Beavan’s goal is to create no net impact on the environment by producing zero trash, carbon emissions, water pollutants, plastic, as well as various other environmental hazards. In order to follow through and reach this goal, Colin, Michelle, and their child restrict themselves travel by plane or car, eliminate electricity from their home, remove their television, utilize biking and public transportation, and purchase food from local sources. In the documentary, Michelle expresses the lack of fulfillment with excessive material items in her statement that “the rapacious consumption for consumption’s sake, and the coma that induces” is due to capitalist norms of American society (Beavan, 2009, 1:18:35). Throughout the film, Colin appears on several talk shows to convey his motives to influence others to live a more environmentally conscious lifestyle. In doing so, he receives criticism from a multitude of viewers. What causes such drastic criticism of living in an environmentally conscious manner? Would living without the conveniences that accompany a consumer based society be the largest component for the backlash that Colin received? Or is it simply more favorable to ignore the structural alterations that are required in order to aid in environmental protection and the climate crisis? One article mentioned in the film was entitled “The Year Without Toilet Paper” which presented the ways that the American press expresses undermining views on environmental activism. In what ways does this shift the idea of living with zero net impact as dirty or a negative lifestyle for people to pursue? How does the journalism within America highlight environmentalists as alarmists rather than as civilians attempting to better society?
“No Impact Man” showed Colin Beavan and his family’s journey to have a zero impact on the environment for a year. The experiment was tough to begin with, but I think doing this experiment in New York City makes it much harder because it is a concrete jungle. It is one of the most polluted cities in the United States, and to completely shut out from the surrounding technologies is a challenge, especially when everyone else is emitting a lot of waste. How long do you think Beavan could have lived under such strict conditions? Beavan’s experiment is similar to Thoreau’s Walden which leads me to wonder if Thoreau lived in today’s society, would he have been able to perform his experiment the same as he did during Walden? There are an abundance of technological advancements today than there were during Thoreau’s time, would it have been more of a challenge to live like Beavan did?
In the conclusion of Walden Thoreau says “However mean your life is, meet it and live it… It looks poorest when you are richest. The fault-finder will find faults in paradise” (328). This is a really powerful quote but we need to think about it in a critical way. When Thoreau says this I interpret it as that he is poor in materialistic things and rich in intelligence, this may have been the case back when he was alive, however in today’s time it is really tough to make it when living in poverty, not poverty by choice but real poverty. Just like we talked about in class Thoreau was really privileged, he was given a piece of land and he was able to borrow tools to build his house, all of this was borrowed from his mentor. Thoreau is given so much opportunity to explore his mind as well as his ideas on nature and solitude, talks about how all people should take some time to be spend time alone in nature. My question is how would Thoreau sympathize with people who are not as privileged as he is in him ability to spend time in nature? What would Thoreau suggest for marginalized people who have systems working against them to prevent them from gaining capital as well as knowledge, how can these people be their richest when they are poor and struggling to make ends meet? Could Thoreau actually have meant something else by this quote, is there another way to interpret the quote
In the film, “No Impact Man,” Colin Beavan and his family entertained the idea of no waste by decreasing the amount of harm they are placing on the environment. In Colin’s one year experiment the family gradually eliminated/adjusted their way of living by replacing or getting rid of single use plastics, electricity, meats, trash, and anything that ultimately can cause harm to the environment. Although, the Beavan family went through a lot of physical and mental struggles throughout this experiment, they enjoyed the reflection and reevaluation that came from it. I greatly respect in the film how Colin states that he is not conducting this experiment to force everyone to do this or live this particular way, but more so encourage people to reflect and reevaluating their waste production and environmental impact as well. I can also appreciate how Colin’s experiment brought the family closer and how they enjoyed time spending more times with friends, family, and people within the community. I think it was interesting that so many people became interested in his experiment and he was provided so many outlets/opportunities to share his experience. Overall his idea and educational goals of being “no impact” brings up an important concept of zero waste and reducing environmental harm that is done. But his actual experiment may not be as effective in legitimately reducing waste and being more environmentally friendly. The most significant critique I have of his experiment is that it was more philosophical than statistical, which is interesting because how can you prove you have been less wasteful for the past year without some type of data. For example, when Colin decides to turn off their electricity and use candles instead, how is that less pollution or any better than using electricity. Their family was burning candles for 6 months, which produces CO2, so how is that less or more environmentally friendly than using electricity. An additional critique is that the Beavan’s family was able to conduct this experiment because they had the resources beforehand that they could use.
Connecting Colin’s experiment back to our class discussion on Tuesday (Sept. 1st) about poverty, people who are defined as being poor in terms of not having the same resources as the Beavan’s family could potentially be living the way the Beavan’s family is living during this experiment. The Beavan’s family could be insulting poor people who actually live this way because they are not has economically wealthy.
My question would be how could the Beavan’s family design and create an experiment that allows them to measure their environmental impact statistically and generate data? Additionally, what have we (students, community members, America) done to help reduce our harm to the environment and work toward producing less waste?
The film No Impact Man tells the story of how writer Colin Beaven and his family participate in a year-long experiment to live without having an impact on the environment. This means they cannot produce any trash, use carbon-based transportation, use electricity, or purchase food that is transported from more than 250 miles away from where they live in New York City. Ideally, once the experiment is complete, Colin and his wife Michelle will decide which habits they will continue with and which ones they will eliminate. Colin blogs about his experience and receives a lot of criticism from the public. Many view this experiment as extreme and believe that it will not accomplish anything in the long run. Even environmentalists criticize him claiming that he is giving them a bad reputation. Eventually, the experiment received attention from larger media sources. Colin was featured on the radio and was a guest on a variety of talk shows. One statement that caught my attention was from an interview with Steven Colbert. Colbert says “you may be on my show, but I am not here to spread your particular gospel because I think what you are doing is extremely dangerous” (1:10:48). I was struck by his use of the phrase “extremely dangerous” so I went and watched the full interview. What is not shown in the film is the statement that follows which is “because you are anti-consumerism and being an American is being a consumer”. This leads me to believe that Colbert equates being anti-consumerism to being anti-American, something that is extremely frowned upon. Is consumerism so embedded in our culture that being anti-consumerism implies that you are anti-American? If so, how can we shift away from that mindset?
In the film “no impact man” the beavens found quite a bit of opposition to their experiment, whether it be from within like her not wanting to give up coffee or outside pres to s critiquing them. What would be some issues the US would run into if preforming a similar experiment on a large scale? What kind of critiques would Thoreau have for the beavens?
I thought No Impact Man was a very interesting film. There are several aspects of the movie which I agree with, but there are also many aspects which I seriously question. I really enjoyed the interview with Mayer Vishner towards the later part of the movie (1:07-1:12). In the Conversation, Mayer brings up the point that Colin’s world is almost simplifying the issue of anthropological Climate change to a point where it could be misinterpreted as the only action required is, “To change the lightbulb and recycle their plastic bag” (1:08:50). The conversation then goes on to discuss how the company which Michelle works for has huge ecologically impacts, and it is foolish to think that their actions truly had no impact on the environment (because some of their income was being contributed by Michelle), or that their impact would be offset by their actions. Mayer’s opinions on the really voiced my concerns in understanding the project. What did you all think of this interview/ conversation? Does Mayer have a point? At the end of the movie we see Michelle decide to make several lifestyle changes to have a better impact. With what Mayer stated, do you think she is really become a critical thinker to how her actions impact the environment? Or is she making changes to affect her own view of herself?
In “No Impact Man” the audience sees the Beavan family reject social norms and consumer culture. This rejection of consumerism builds a barrier between them and American culture. Soon, this separation from the environment they’ve always known brings an awaking. The family begins to build better relationships with each other, their friends, and their community. In the same way that Thoreau experiences a spiritual awakening in the natural world, the Beavan family seems to experience a similar awakening in the city. Throughout Walden, Thoreau mostly dismisses human interaction and seems to replace a human relationship with the natural world. Solidarity is key to his transcendentalist vision and possibly the driving point to his spiritual awakening. Do you think Thoreau’s transcendentalist outlook holds him back in experiencing a fully human life? How? Do you think the Beavans are missing out on Thoreau’s spiritual awakening in nature? Can a spiritual awakening in the natural world and spiritual awakening through human bonding fully exist within the current American culture? If so, how? How could society rebuild itself to ensure both plays a key role in American society?
In the film “No Impact Man”, Colin Beavan and his family attempt to have zero environmental impact in a year. In doing so, they give up a variety of activities and lifestyle choices which normally they would partake in (for example, morning coffee). In doing so, they adopt new habits and activities to fill their time. What impact did their new activities have on their relationships with each other and the world around them? Do you think their experiment has been spiritually fulfilling for the Beavans? What similarities and differences does it have with the spiritual impact of Thoreau’s Walden experiment on him? Finally, if you were to undertake the same experiment the Beavins did, do you think you would be spiritually enriched or drained from it?
In “The Pond in Winter”, Thoreau attempts to “sound” or map the depth of the pond, what could be the significance or significance of him doing this? I believe that possibly because Thoreau consistently treats Walden Pond as a reflection of himself, it’s safe to assume that his investigation of the pond’s depths will lead him to discover similarities between himself and the pond. Thoreau is fond of challenging conventional ideas. In Walden Pond’s case, the conventional idea is that the pond is bottomless. Thoreau knows that this can’t be true; no pond is bottomless. But he takes to disproving the conventional idea with a sort of passion. By demonstrating that he was right all along, he also sets himself above ordinary people. “It is remarkable how long men will believe in the bottomlessness of a pond without taking the trouble to sound it.” He’s certainly not that kind of man. Thoreau often uses superlatives to describe Walden Pond. When he sounds it, he discovers that the pond has “a remarkable depth for so small an area.” This is fortunate for Thoreau, who often stresses his own intellectual and philosophical depths. “What if all ponds were shallow?” he asks. He doesn’t need to answer that because, in that case, Walden Pond would be completely ordinary, but overall what do you believe the symbolism of him measuring the depths of the pond is and what is the significance?
In the chapter ‘Spring’ in Walden Thoreau expresses that “few phenomena gave me more delight than to observe the forms which thawing sand and clay assume in flowing down the sides of a deep cut on the railroad” (247). In this statement nature takes the role of entertainment. I think observing nature can be a low impact way of extracting from nature. Nature as entertainment instead of railroads or television is comparatively very slow. What is the benefit of being slowed down? One advantage Thoreau notes is that “we should be blessed if we lived in the present always, and took advantage of every accident that befall us” (255). This is the same question that is raised in No Impact Man. What Michelle and Colin discovered is that replacing quick modern technologies with slow alternatives doesn’t actually waste time, rather it makes “the days feel like they last forever.” How do we move out of believing what seems now to not be true? How do we move forward, societally, believing and understanding that a slowed down life with less actually gives up more of what we need?
**I am trying to reply to Cortney but the website isn’t letting it show up**
Cortney, I like the question you posed and I have been wondering similar things since viewing “No Impact Man.” To me, Michelle represents a more realistic perspective in America. What I mean is that while Colin’s ideals are noble and good for the earth and even line up with what a typical SD student may believe, he seems like a far reach for the average American. Michelle, however, is more approachable because she is honest with the audience about where she lies with her convictions, and throughout the documentary we get to watch those convictions change. I don’t think a complete shift of habits and attitudes would be entirely accepted and successful because of the way consumerism and the way of life Americans now have is so deeply engrained. However, I do think that Michelle is an inspiration that can connect to a typical American who is not already engaged in environmental issues because she is more relatable and shows us that it is possible to change and you don’t have to be already extremely committed to environmentalism to even try. The question I have is based on Michelle’s transformation throughout “No Impact Man,” how does this show us how to connect to and reach people who don’t share our same views about environmentalism and other issues?
In Thoreau’s “The Bean-Field,” he contemplates his relationship with the food he’s growing and the food’s relationship with the Earth. He observes while tending to his beans every day that he has become more in tune with the rhythms of the natural world. In “No Impact Man,” Colin Beavan frequents a community garden to help a friend grow some vegetables. At one point in the movie, Colin mentions he doesn’t feel like this year of his life is counted by turning a page in a calendar but by the turning of the soil after harvest in the garden. Colin often discusses how important it is to know where your food comes from. This is why he chooses to shop at the farmers market and visit the farms where his food is grown.
Thoreau believes that “husbandry was once a sacred art” but is now “degraded with us, and the farmer lives the meanest of lives.”(165) Husbandry is the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals. With the modern-day meat industry, the use of genetically modified organisms, mass production, and monocropping our relationship with the food we eat is practically non-existent. After harvest, Thoreau had sold some of his crops but he regretted it and said he ‘will not plant beans and corn with so much industry another summer.”(164)
Although the human relationship with food is broken in many cultures, because of our rapid population growth, might many people be dying of hunger if it weren’t for the mass production of food? Is it worth it for humans to sacrifice a spiritual connection with the soil and the food that comes from it in order to survive? If grocery stores stopped selling food one day would most people be able to fend for themselves in the industrialized world we live in today?
“I sat at a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, and obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board (172).”
This quote is from the Conclusion chapter of Walden. I thought this quote served as a good metaphor for how our society operates and it also relates back to something Thoreau talked about in the Visitors chapter. He mentions how when we has visitors he would rather feed them in the spiritual than the material. In the quote above from Conclusion, Thoreau says he “went away hungry,” not meaning from lack of food but rather from lack of any meaningful interactions. The large amounts of fancy food, and displays of wealth did not impress him because there was no sincerity, no genuine people to be with. I feel as though this is how our society operates day in and day out. We cling to the need for money, power, status and in the process lose what it really means to be human. We walk through life unfulfilled, empty, constantly chasing some feeling of purpose that seemingly never arrives. All of those other things are human inventions, or constructs that only hold whatever value society places on them. The true meaning of life can not be found within those things. Thoreau argues only through nature can we discover what it means to truly be alive and enjoy said life. So, what is the purpose of having such a “wealthy” society if all its members are spiritually broken? If we are all so disconnected from nature and the processes that go into sustaining/ promoting life, then what are we doing? What kinds of things would a fulfilling society have to offer?
Thoreau begins solitude with “This is a delicious evening, when the whole body is one sense, and imbibes delight through every pore. I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a part of herself.” (82) This chapter starts of incredibly warm. You can feel how connected he is with the land and his home. It is almost if he is living inside a movie and the movie is nature itself. Throughout Walden Thoreau boast about being one with the land and letting go of all material things that really do not matter. “Solitude” was his time to really observe and break down what the difference between alone and being lonely.
He acknowledges that some people would say that it would “feel lonesome down there” (84) but he denies that feeling of being lonely. He even goes as far as questioning why should he ever feel that way. Thoreau goes on to say “I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude.” But how true is that really? As he continues to write I get a growing sense of melancholy surrounding the idea of being alone. It seems that the loneliness was seeping in. I feel as if he was trying to deny the part of himself that wanted a human connection even if it was a “short interval”. He continues to downplay social interaction between humans calling it “commonly cheap”. Why does he feel the need to deny wanting connections outside of nature? It is not shameful wanting to be alone, even though he says it is.
The visitors he got were human—an old man and an old woman. Were these visitors his subconsciousness way of trying to create the company that Thoreau repeatedly denied needing? If there is not anything I have learned since COVID, there is nothing more human than connecting with other humans. We are never truly alone—even when we feel that we are. The question is how we can decide that our solitude is not just isolation? How can we determine that we have been alone with our thoughts and nature enough to heal from the pain of the world without hiding from it?
In “Conclusion”, Thoreau says “it is remarkable how easily and insensibly we fall into a particular route, and make a beaten track for ourselves. I had not lived there a week before my feet wore a path from my door to the pond-side…” (302). This made me think about how easily humans can fall into a pattern of over-consumption and wastefulness. In “No Impact Man”, we can see Colin Beavan and Michelle notice how they had become trapped in consumerism and capitalistic society. Humans continuously leave a path of destruction and do not realize it until we look back. Thoreau goes on to say “… and though it is five or six years since I trod it, it is still quite distinct” (302). I connect this to when Colin is speaking with the man who gardens and he tells Colin that taking the stairs and consuming responsibly does not erase the damage of corporations and mass production. As humans, we must be conscious as a whole in order to begin to restore the path of destruction we have created. Finally, Thoreau says “the surface of the earth is soft and impressible by the feet of men; and so with the paths which the mind travels” (302). Do you think the Beavan’s began to restore the path of capitalistic delusion that their minds are consumed with? How does one remove the consumerist mindset? Is finding a spiritual connection to nature the only way? Does finding a spiritual connection to nature work in detaching our minds from what we have always known?
There’s a fascinating disconnect between the meaning of the “No Impact Man” experiment and the views that people have on it. The amount of hate and even death threats that people poured upon the family was absolutely ludicrous and unwarranted. In the movie, Michelle meets with a “hater” who essentially called them self-promoting frauds. What this woman comes to say is that she thinks that the majority of people are so filled with hate over the experiment because it makes people reevaluate and feel guilty about their consumerism. It forces people to look at the person in the mirror and shows them that the impacts of their very existence affect others. Which, makes total sense. When you point out a person’s flaws, most likely their first reaction is one of vehement defense and anger. So, what do you think about the hate they’ve received? Do you think it’s mirroring the hate that environmentalism is receiving today? What do you think the answer is to it?
On page 158 Thoreau says, “I would advise you to do all of your work if possible when the dew is on,” this statement is fascinating to me personally because it seems like a traditional piece of advice that had been passed down for generations. I’m curious if anyone else found Thoreau to be a proverb in a sense and whether or not that was intended in his writing or merely a side-effect of spending time tending to and in nature? Following that, Thoreau makes a number of observations viewing man through the lens of nature, like in this quote on page 170, “ As I walked into the woods to see the birds and squirrels , so I walked in the village to see the men and boys,” obviously Thoreau would not consider this harsh, considering the theme of his research and experimentation at this time. But do you think it is dangerous, or unfair, to equate humans with nature, creating the guise that humans are one with nature, when especially by today’s standards most of us have almost completely separated ourselves. How do you think Thoreau would answer this?
My question pertains to Solitude. Similar to last week, I am encountering an individualist undertone in Thoreau’s text, although I suppose that makes sense given that Thoreau has been singing the praises of solitude since before this chapter. In this chapter, Thoreau states that he favors being alone for multiple reasons, including his increased ability to spend time in the “fields” of his mind (comparing the mental efforts of a student to the physical efforts of a farmer). He also seems to believe that interacting with other people within the conventions of the dominant society had a cheapening effect. Unfortunately, my text is without page numbers, but there is a quote that reads “The value of a man is not in his skin, that we should touch him,” which echoes this same argument that contact with others can have a negative impact on their and our intrinsic value. That being said, Thoreau continues to state that none of us are ever alone due to our interconnectedness with the natural world.Thoreau’s understanding of the implications of solitude is a bit troubling. This is because I believe that that problem that Thoreau is faced with is that he is in disagreement with the framework within which human interaction takes place, but he seems to direct his frustration toward the interaction itself. Because Thoreau’s frustration is misdirected, his solution (the pursuit of solitude) is misdirected as well. I’m finding it hard to think of a specific question, but I’m wondering what everyone’s thoughts are… is Thoreau misguided, or am I?
On page 321, Walden is detailing in his conclusion why he “left the woods”, he begins discussing how easily we as humans become trapped in our habits and comfortability as individuals and as a society. For instance, Thoreau says, “How worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity!” (page 321) Obviously Thoreau was a nonconformist in his experience at Walden as well as in his writings, and he definitely supported free thinking, saying on page 322, “If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.” Considering both of these quotes, do you think Thoreau would consider the university system a good method of “building foundations”? Especially for the field of sustainable development that is facing such time sensitive and undervalued issues.
One comment that really caught my attention from the movie No Impact Man is that “If people really thought that you could create an impact with this project, you would not be getting the publicity that you are!” This really struck me because the belief that an individual’s actions have limited impact creates a barricade that limits our ability to understand the changes or opportunities presented to us. Although living the life of no impact is not easy or simple, the idea is to create a simplistic lifestyle that connects you more with the world around you while also reducing the extra burdens within your life brought on my societal and economic expectations. This idea relates with a passage from Thoreau’s book which states that “Our life is frittered away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the rest. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb nail.” These two passages correlate with the relevancy of human impact on today’s society. Going back to the first example from No Impact Man, my question is that if living a life of simplicity and little impact is more efficient, why is it perceived so negatively? How long will our earth be degraded until we finally realize the importance of limiting our impact? Also, why do we as a society continue to market and broadcast ideals that is in place to prevent us from moving forward while disproving and limiting the ideals that sometimes goes against some morals but is set to better our environment and society as a whole?
Julia, I have been thinking about these questions as well. I think that living a life of simplicity would be great. but like wearing holes in your pants, this could be judged by the social norms of society. The large corporations that control much of our daily lives, such as Big Ag and Fossil Fuel companies have created a life of convenience and have been able to make the products we are reliant on so cheap, perpetuating our dependence on such items. By going against the grain and living more sustainably, it sheds light on the issues of everyday norms, and I feel as though some people may get defensive. By challenging social norms, we are also challenging common people who may be unable to afford going into the woods for two years or buying everything from the farmer’s market, which some communities are not as fortunate to have. I’m not even sure that people would have the option to go into the woods like Thoreau anymore because most parcels of land have been commodified at this point. I think that in order to seek change, we must demand it from those who have corporate control over production and consumption. Sure, we can change our personal lives, but does that really impact the system? I also was wondering what purpose Thoreau and Collin, both experimenting with different ways of living, were really intending to do these projects for? It’s easy to say that it was an example of social change, but could it have just been a way to disguise their self-motivated efforts to acquire capital? (Interviews, selling books, becoming famous) Does Thoreau or Collin do certain things in their projects because they are “performing” for an audience? I cannot help but wonder what their true intentions are since they are, from the start, intending on not living those impactful lifestyles after the experiments are over.
In Spring, “One year I went across the middle only five days before it disppeared entirely”(328), this quote is in reference to the ice on the pond that Thoreau had been at. He goes on to talk about how even nature shocks those who have been a part of it for many years like the man who tried to go duck hunting and was surprised when he came to the pond on a warm day and ice still covered it. I think that his point for talking about this is to show that even if we believe we understand and are one with nature we still can’t truly expect to understand nature because of its unpredictability. Nature is unpredictable and we have to deal with that reality rather than always anticipating natures next move. He went on to list when the ponds first day without ice on it each year was and it shows how unpredictable nature can be. Do you think Thoreau would approve of current corporate argoculture (asking because it alters the natural function of nature)? Do you think he would approve of any manipulations of natures for humans benefit?
Unlike Thoreau, Collin and his family, from No Impact Man, decided to have zero impact on the environment for a year. It seemed like they were instead, trying to test themselves than convince other people to live the way they do. While Colin said, “No one has to do what I do” on Good Morning America, it seems like he is still trying to show his lifestyle is achievable and viable, and should be considered.
In “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For,” Thoreau writes , “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” (59). The first part is concerned with a place to stay and the second part is a philosophical contemplation about the meaning of life. Thoreau works both philosophical and practical parts into his work. When Thoreau notes “the essential facts of life” can refer to both necessities to survive but also, the reason of human existence.
Me personally, am trying to understand if both No Impact Man and Walden were trying to test themselves or create social change? What do you think? Did Walden and No Impact man have similar or different motivations?
The film, “No Impact Man” was a very inspiring story to me. From afar, the entire year-long project seemed very extreme and stirred up a reaction as the family received a huge amount of hate from the media. In an interview with Colin and a reporter, she compared his current situation as it “may seem at best, like a scene from an old-fashioned situation” This kind of reminded me of Walden, because Colin, his wife, and his one-year-old daughter all went on this “zero-waste” journey and putting all their energy into living the most simplistic, environmentally friendly, no impact lifestyle as possible. It is all about weighing what is more important, wants vs. need. This is a very tough lifestyle for anyone to endure and can definitely cause some stress for the family. Colin and the daughter seem to be doing great, however, for the wife, as a Starbucks, shopping addicted working mom, seems to be struggling quite a bit. For one, this is partly because of the criticism and as well as the craving of buying clothes, a cup of coffee, and takeout. I really enjoyed what Colin had to say in an interview, he said we are very weak in individual action, “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?” He said in another interview “all of us should learn to do what we can do” and I think that is very useful advice if someone is trying to increase their individual action. And makes me very confident that I would be able to decrease my environmental impact if I went in with a good mindset and took baby steps. My question is, how do you think you would react in this situation? Would you be more like the wife, Michelle, or like Colin? What would be the hardest thing to cut our of your life?
Throughout Walden, Thoreau constantly uses nature as a metaphor to describe his spiritual awakening that he has while staying at the pond For example, in the chapter “Spring”, Thoreau describes his own spiritual “thaw” and revitalization he feels coming on with the transition to spring, similar to the thawing of the ice in Walden Pond. He even describes the pond in terms of his own feelings, saying “It stretched itself and yawned like a waking man with a gradually increasing tumult.” I find it interesting the way Thoreau consistently personifies the surrounding environment as a way to project his own feelings, and likewise he uses nature as a metaphor for describing his spiritual growth. Do you think nature itself can act as a universal tool for giving people a deeper, more profound sense of spirituality, or do you believe it takes a certain type of person, inherently, to develop this appreciation and spirituality as Thoreau did?
In “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”, Thoreau mentions this mindset that he embraced to let his imagination explore. He describes the lake and air as heaven much closer and more important and says that even though his dwelling is much smaller, the pasture is big enough for his imagination (69). He goes on to say “Both time and place were changed, and I dwelt nearer to those parts of the universe and to those eras in history which had most attracted me. Where I lived was as far off as many a region viewed nightly by astronomers” (69). Thoreau seems very critical of the townspeople who toil all of their life but does not seem to take into account their view of a “deliberate” life. Could Thoreau simply be seen as someone who is running from their problems and believes a more simple life is the answer? To what extent should imagination take over reality?
This is going back a little, but Thoreau writes in “Where I lived, What I Lived For” of Walden that “And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, — we never need read of another (p. 76).” While he may be making a good point about some of the “silly” news stories out there, is it true that all news is superfluous and repetitive? Thinking of BLM and the ways in which media has brought attention to repeated state violence and systemic injustice, is Thoreau really right?
Both Thoreau and Colin Beavan (and, reluctantly, Colin’s wife Michelle Conlin) start their experiments on self-reliance from a place of privilege- Thoreau is basically staying in a crude guest house he built on his professor’s country estate, while Beavan lives in a 5th Ave Manhattan co-op. Both are primarily living off of their accumulated capital -both financial and social- for a set amount of time and then dropping the charade and writing books about it. What I find endearing about Colin and Michelle is that they seem much more self-aware of their haplessness and willing to accept or at least explore the contradictory nature of the experiment (the most likable character in the film for me is an older hippie type from the Village who despite his good nature and friendship toward Beavan, lays bare the theatrical hypocrisy of the whole endeavor for Colin). I find myself wondering which is closer to a true experiment? That is to say, which if either is starting with a hypothesis and then following the evidence to whatever conclusion(s) that evidence points to? Or, are both starting with a conclusion and going backward, cherry picking the evidence that supports their “hypothesis”? For me, this is where I give Colin (and really more so Michelle) credit- they accept at least some of the ridiculousness of it by the end, and that to me is much more scientific in nature. The experiment’s evidence pointed in a direction that was not in keeping with the original hypothesis, so he follows the evidence.
“They’re calling us bourgeois fucks.” – Michelle Conlin
I enjoyed watching the film, No Impact Man. It was honestly very inspiring and quite interesting. I loved his commitment to the experiment and how he also used his time to raise awareness for a multitude of environmental issues within his city, New York. By informing his friends and the group of students, he was raising awareness for sustainability and made it seem more in reach. Although his wife cheated the experiment a few times by grabbing coffee, I still appreciated her support of her husbands experiment. Watching all of the obstacles that the family had made me realize just how hard it is to live a sustainable lifestyle. In what ways can we, people that are passionate about sustainability, make it easier for everyone to live a sustainable lifestyle? Or.. Is it out of our hands and more up to people in office to make sustainability more achievable for the public?
I found the film No Impact Man to be a curious venture into an often repeated experiment of sustainability and living a “Zero-Waste” lifestyle. Colin Bevan along with his wife and daughter take it a step further when they turn off the electricity in their NYC apartment for six months. This, along with their abandonment of toilet paper and the whimsical vibe of Colin and Michelle might have been a step too far for most people, earning them a fair bit of criticism, especially from a local man working in a community garden who rips their experiment to shreds. I was surprised that the landlord, the city and social services even allowed the experiment to continue at that point. Their experiment had the noblest of intentions and I think it’s pretty neat they did this inside of NYC, however it comes across as a lighthearted venture. A few years ago I lived and worked at a primitive wilderness camp and homestead for about 6 months (a bit of a Thoreau myself, minus the wealth). We had toilet paper in the outhouses, but no electricity on the site and our running water came primarily from a creek. We recycled urine in sawdust to add nitrogen back to the gardens, composted our food scraps or fed them to the animals that would eventually feed us. Horses pulled our plows and our understanding of local eating was whatever came from a few acres around us. I’d like to think that both Colin Bevan and Thoreau would be proud of the work I did there. However, after I reflect on my personal experiences, watched Colin’s journey and read Thoreau’s account of the wilderness I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a highly unappealing lifestyle to the majority of people residing in developed nations, especially the United States. While sustainable development students might find green lifestyle changes fun and impactful many people do not. For example Michelle Bevan despised her husbands compost box due to the bugs inside which is a widespread reason why many people avoid composting. How can we convince millions of people to make some serious lifestyle changes that are unappealing and widely considered “overkill” while still maintaining pressure on major corporations to reel in their emissions? Is it not our patriotic duty under capitalism to consume more, endlessly?
In “Solitude” Thoreau writes about how less tends to be more. While staying at the Walden pond alone and around nature, Thoreau learns how to value society through a different lens. He values it from afar; as in having less of the chaos, less of the filtering, less of the anxieties gives you the ability to become more in tune with nature, as well as mind body and spirit. He believes that solitude can create happiness. He goes on to say “I was suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in the very pattering of the drops, and in every sound and sight around my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once like an atmosphere sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of human neighborhood insignificant, and I have never thought of them since.” I chose this quote because I feel that it explains how Thoreau felt; felt as though society disappeared, all the superficial and materialistic things of the world just vanished and nature, a sustaining and giving thing was so welcoming, raw and peaceful at the same time. I feel that he felt as though leaving all those worldly things behind, you are able to experience happiness, balance, yet maintaining a respect and honor in what the human-world does offer. So, my question for this week would be do you all think that Thoreau would suggest taking society back to more simplistic and minimalist lifestyles? Would that make society more peaceful, more happy, less difficult?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In the film “No Impact Man” Colin struggles with whether or not his experiment is actually relevant or will have an impact past its end point. Furthermore, he has to grapple with constant criticism from the media, and even other environmentalists. In one segment, Colin reads some criticism from an environmentalist who says “people like you give us all a bad name.” Why do you think this critique perceives Colin’s experiment as giving environmentalists and the environmental movement a bad name? Do you think this has any broader implications on larger themes, such as the heavily political nature of modern society (i.e. politics as power)?
Furthermore, Colin brings up his own questions throughout the film. In particular he asks if we have to be a disposable culture and if it is possible for humans to live on the planet doing more good than harm to nature. One of the critiques to his goals and experiment is the gardener, Mayer, who lets Colin help out on his plot in the community garden. Mayer says that because corporate American capitalism is so prevalent and pushed by media, that Colin’s experiment might lure people into a false sense of security about their own actions (i.e. ‘I only have to recycle to do my part’). Do you think there is a way to live sustainably in a corporate capitalistic society? If not, how can the “brainwashing” of the virtue of corporate capitalism be ended and replaced with a more sustainable system?
“people like you give us all a bad name” really stuck with me also, during President Bush’s term it was very American to consume away.I found it odd how much resistance the Beavan family received from the media, how anyone could be upset with someone trying to make a positive difference. Maybe both parties had strong ulterior motives.
I was also intrigued by the backlash the Beavan family received and why so many people were critical of what was essentially just one family’s experiment of will- you can easily draw a comparison from their short-term “experiment” to Thoreau’s short-term “experiment” which begs the question of why Thoreau is so heavily lauded but the Beavan family was so heavily criticized. I could understand why some people were claiming Colin’s outspokenness about his project was “making the look bad” because it certainly was a more extreme way of going about environmentalism and due to its publicity it would garner a lot more attention than more mainstream activist’s calls, becoming the face for a movement that, in their opinion, the project did not accurately represent. If everyone started to associate “environmentalism” with having to give up their electricity, air conditioning/heating, and toilet paper, a lot more people would be averse to the movement as a whole. In this sense, it is understandable that environmentalists were concerned about their work and efforts would become trivialized.
I’m glad you brought up Mayer because I think his argument was one of the more profound ones in the documentary and yet received such a limited amount of time. He pointed out the profound hypocrisy of their family doing this project but that Michelle was working for Newsweek, a corporation which actively fuels American capitalism and undeniably produces more waste than the Beavan family could ever eliminate. I am still conflicted about the extent to which we can live sustainably within a reformed capitalistic system but I think that this documentary may have further solidified my position that personal modifications will never be sufficient in the face of corporate greed.
I was also really interested in why the Beavans received so much backlash. I today’s society, there is a heavy push for tolerance and I would think that the people who use that as one of their platforms would be more receptive to the kind of experiment that the Beavan family did. I wonder if the Beavan family got so much negativity, yet Thoreau didn’t is because not that many people aren’t as familiar with his experiment at Walden, thus making the Beavan family look like social outcasts
I found the Beavan family’s experiment to be more self-serving than Colin cared to admit. While it is important that individuals do what they can to live more sustainably, I feel like Colin was doing it more for applause than to make an actual difference. Colin said he was very concerned about “collective action” yet he wasn’t even able to have open-ended conversations with his wife on what they would like their experiment to look like. Considering how he forced this lifestyle onto his family, I wonder how successful he would be at participating in real democratic grassroots collective action he speaks of. The mainstream environmental movement is overwhelmingly white, male, straight, upperclass and too concerned with the separation of nature and culture. By playing into these stereotypes of environmentalism, his exercise doesn’t do much to change the narrative or invite more people into the movement.
Reducing consumptive habits and rejecting capitalistic logic is certainly a virtuous exercise, but thousands of people do this everyday without having a documentary crew follow them around as if they are doing something entirely new. It is important to note that there is no way to ethically consume in a capitalist society, because someone is always exploited in the chain of production. I agree with Mayer that reducing one’s own consumption is admirable but without organizing collective around the issues of disposability in our culture, it doesn’t really create lasting change and could cause people to become complacent with their own individual actions. Individualism is one of the key components of Capitalism after all.
Hazel,
I completely agree with you. I felt this experiment was incredibly self serving and screamed white, cis, wealthy, male environmentalism.
In “Spring”, Thoreau writes, “Who would have suspected so large and cold and think-skinned a thing to be so sensitive? Yet it has its law to which thunders obedience when it should as surely as the buds expand in the spring. The earth is all alive and covered with papillae. The largest pond is as sensitive to atmospheric changes as the globule of mercury in its tube.” (322). This not only represents a scientific outlook on the pond, but Thoreau also leaves us with a metaphorical question. Nevertheless, throughout this chapter Thoreau comments on the law of nature, and it is clear that the thawing of the pond is following this law. As the pond thaws, it shows life. This depicts how nature changes throughout the season and how spring represents new life. Yet I can’t help but think about how Thoreau used the word “sensitive” more than once. This makes me think about how sensitive nature is to change and how sensitive it is to human impact. The pond thaws slowly, just as nature replenishes its resources slowly. Nature cannot keep up with human impact. Because of this, I think about climate change. More specifically, Thoreau makes a point of how sensitive the pond is to the atmospheric changes, because of this it makes the impacts of climate change and human activity even more noticeable. Nevertheless, my question is, is there a way to prevent these sensitivities, even if it may be natural? How might the law of nature be affected by atmospheric changes, such as climate change?
In “Solitude”, Thoreau writes about his opinion on human interaction. He explains that society is too cheap. We all live by rules and etiquette, and suffocate each other with all of this interaction. I found this section very interesting. It makes me wonder why we continue to follow these odd unspoken rules of etiquette, when most of us don’t even want to follow them. We are expected to be polite all the time and follow the boundaries of society, but why do we continue to do so when most of us would prefer not to? Thoreau’s solution to this exhaustion of constant cheap human interaction was very interesting to me. He states that “it would be better if there were but one inhabitant to a square mile, as where I live. The value of a man is not in his skin, that we should touch him.” If we were all to live alone, but one square mile from each other, I wonder how human relationships would change? How would human relationships with nature change? Humans are very social creatures, but Thoreau believes that we would be better off in solitude. If we all follow Thoreau’s model of society, how would this change our attitude towards each other? Would it be for the better, or would it be unhealthy to spend so much time in solitude?
Bonnie, I really like the thought experiment you propose. As an introvert, it definitely sounds appealing in some ways. And as Thoreau says in Solitude, this might make us value our interactions with people even more. I’m sure this would lead to a lot more introspection, thoughtfulness, and quiet. However, I am kind of averse to this suggestion by Thoreau. I feel that my greatest relationships occur with those who I spend ample time with. When I don’t need to spend our entire conversation catching up with each other, we can move on to our thoughts about life, the world, and more. Also, while introspection can teach us a lot, I think there is just as much, if not more to learn from interacting with people and bouncing our thoughts and ideas off of each other. If anything, I think we should re-evaluate the social norms of socialization that Thoreau dislikes so much. We should learn to relate in more intimate, personal ways. But I also think that is a personal belief, and we could (and do) have places where people live a mile apart, while we also have places where people voluntarily live right on top of each other.
Great question! The unspoken etiquette of cultures feels restrictive to those who don’t aspire to fit into the set parameters. Examining the historical contexts of “outcasts,” “weirdos,” and-especially for environmentalists and social justice warriors-“terrorists” has educated us on how/where structural violence exists in societies: in the hands of the white, wealthy men. So, I think that solitude is excellent for freedom, self-expression, and spiritual (or poetic) growth but as structural violence continues to exist, it might still be the outcast’s duty to exist in a collective or divided community.
Bonnie, I have been thinking about these questions a lot as well! I consider myself a bit more introverted, and enjoy time in solitude, but I also know people who genuinely thrive off of spending time with others. I also tend to think that Western culture is very individualistic, which can be seen in Thoreau’s work. It is especially evident in many of the issues that the US is facing with the pandemic, like people refusing to wear masks. I also admire cultures that are very family and community oriented, and think there is a lot of benefits to living in a society that places high value on relationships. I also relate to what Michael wrote, about relating in different ways, rather than checking the boxes of proper etiquette, however, I also think that this change may be happening with younger generations. This makes me wonder, is Thoreau’s preaching of solitude Eurocentric in a way?
I love this question. Especially considering the recent quarantine, many of us have spent a lot of time in solitude and have had time to be more introspective. I find myself analyzing how people socially interact and the need for social interaction more often now. I think this quote from Thoreau sums things up very well: ““I have found that no exertion of the legs can bring two minds much nearer to one another.” (133) I don’t believe Thoreau thinks it to be absolutely necessary to be in close proximity to one another because you can be physically close to people but very distant from them mentally. When you are in mental solitude but in physical company, people can seem like more of a burden or a distraction to you. At another point in the chapter, he talks about how someone who works and is busy with their hands all-day does not feel alone but as soon as he returns home at night he doesn’t know how to bare the time alone with themselves. Yet, a student can be alone all day studying yet not feel lonely because they are in company with their books. I think one’s attitude about solidarity depends on your state of mind at any given moment. Personally, I don’t think humans were made to live completely alone. To me, it’s quite selfish to purposefully withdraw from community and not want to share with people, help one another, and be there for the ones you love. I think Thoreau was very privileged to be able to do this experiment and his take on the necessity for self-sufficiency is kind of ableist at times. Though he may have the physical and mental capability to be self-sufficient, others might not have that luxury. It’s discriminatory to say that community need not be a necessity for some people.
Within “The Bean Field” Thoreau discusses the struggles and successes that he had while farming near Walden Pond. In a particular section of this chapter, Thoreau writes; “Reader, that the seeds which I planted, if indeed they were the seeds of those virtues, were worm-eaten or had lost their vitality, and so did not come up. Commonly men will only be brave as their fathers were brave, or timid. This generation is very sure to plant corn and beans each new year precisely as the Indians did centuries ago and taught the first settlers to do, as if there were a fate in it” (Thoreau, 134). Thoreau is thus drawing an analogy of the ways in which society takes care of seed but does not put as much thought into how the individual should grow. While Thoreau acknowledges that this is a way in which society works, he still would likely argue that it rests upon the individuals within society to change it. Perhaps he is suggesting that individuals need to not concern themselves so much with progress, but rather have growth within themselves. Could or would Thoreau suggest that a slow-growth economy and society is a better one? What would he think about some of the ideas in today’s society such as degrowth? What is the best way to achieve this, according to Thoreau?
Within “The Bean Field” Thoreau discusses the struggles and successes that he had while farming near Walden Pond. In a particular section of this chapter, Thoreau writes; “Reader, that the seeds which I planted, if indeed they were the seeds of those virtues, were worm-eaten or had lost their vitality, and so did not come up. Commonly men will only be brave as their fathers were brave, or timid. This generation is very sure to plant corn and beans each new year precisely as the Indians did centuries ago and taught the first settlers to do, as if there were a fate in it” (Thoreau, 134). Thoreau is thus drawing an analogy of the ways in which society takes care of seed but does not put as much thought into how the individual should grow. While Thoreau acknowledges that this is a way in which society works, he still would likely argue that it rests upon the individuals within society to change it. Perhaps he is suggesting that individuals need to not concern themselves so much with progress, but rather have growth within themselves. Could or would Thoreau suggest that a slow-growth economy and society is a better one? What would he think about some of the ideas in today’s society such as degrowth? What is the best way to achieve this, according to Thoreau?
In the documentary “No Impact Man”, Colin attempts to live an entire year without producing any waste or harming the environment in any way. For a large portion of the experiment, Colin’s wife Michelle struggles with not being able to purchase any material things or consume coffee for the year, but eventually becomes comfortable and actually ends up enjoying the experiment in the end. The change in diet and increase in exercise dramatically improved her health and she became happier and began to appreciate nature, community, and her set of values were completely transformed. In the beginning Michelle hated nature and was completely against even starting the experiment, but we can see her attitude towards it completely change. Looking at the way Michelle’s view of the experiment was so drastically different from start to finish, If our society completely shifted its habits and attitudes regarding environmental issues and way of life was transformed in many ways, would this eventually become the new standard and be widely accepted? Would it actually be successful despite the fact that consumerism, greed, and individualism is engrained into American culture?
Cortney, I like the question you posed and I have been wondering similar things since viewing “No Impact Man.” To me, Michelle represents a more realistic perspective in America. What I mean is that while Colin’s ideals are noble and good for the earth and even line up with what a typical SD student may believe, he seems like a far reach for the average American. Michelle, however, is more approachable because she is honest with the audience about where she lies with her convictions, and throughout the documentary we get to watch those convictions change. I don’t think a complete shift of habits and attitudes would be entirely accepted and successful because of the way consumerism and the way of life Americans now have is so deeply engrained. However, I do think that Michelle is an inspiration that can connect to a typical American who is not already engaged in environmental issues because she is more relatable and shows us that it is possible to change and you don’t have to be already extremely committed to environmentalism to even try. The question I have is based on Michelle’s transformation throughout “No Impact Man,” how does this show us how to connect to and reach people who don’t share our same views about environmentalism and other issues?
Cortney, I like the question you posed and I have been wondering similar things since viewing “No Impact Man.” To me, Michelle represents a more realistic perspective in America. What I mean is that while Colin’s ideals are noble and good for the earth and even line up with what a typical SD student may believe, he seems like a far reach for the average American. Michelle, however, is more approachable because she is honest with the audience about where she lies with her convictions, and throughout the documentary we get to watch those convictions change. I don’t think a complete shift of habits and attitudes would be entirely accepted and successful because of the way consumerism and the way of life Americans now have is so deeply engrained. However, I do think that Michelle is an inspiration that can connect to a typical American who is not already engaged in environmental issues because she is more relatable and shows us that it is possible to change and you don’t have to be already extremely committed to environmentalism to even try. The question I have is based on Michelle’s transformation throughout “No Impact Man,” how does this show us how to connect to and reach people who don’t share our same views about environmentalism and other issues?
In “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For,” Thoreau says “we must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep” (Thoreau, Walden 65). What is the significance of being awake for Thoreau and what does it mean to be truly awake for him? Right before this passage he also says that he has not met someone who was so awake, what doe he mean by this? He also states the importance of being awake early in the morning and states “all memorable events, I should say, transpire in morning time and in a morning atmosphere” (Thoreau, Walden). Why does he value the morning time and what does it mean to him?
The film “No Impact Man” follows the year long journey of an environmentalist writer and his family living in New York City. Colin Beavan’s goal is to create no net impact on the environment by producing zero trash, carbon emissions, water pollutants, plastic, as well as various other environmental hazards. In order to follow through and reach this goal, Colin, Michelle, and their child restrict themselves travel by plane or car, eliminate electricity from their home, remove their television, utilize biking and public transportation, and purchase food from local sources. In the documentary, Michelle expresses the lack of fulfillment with excessive material items in her statement that “the rapacious consumption for consumption’s sake, and the coma that induces” is due to capitalist norms of American society (Beavan, 2009, 1:18:35). Throughout the film, Colin appears on several talk shows to convey his motives to influence others to live a more environmentally conscious lifestyle. In doing so, he receives criticism from a multitude of viewers. What causes such drastic criticism of living in an environmentally conscious manner? Would living without the conveniences that accompany a consumer based society be the largest component for the backlash that Colin received? Or is it simply more favorable to ignore the structural alterations that are required in order to aid in environmental protection and the climate crisis? One article mentioned in the film was entitled “The Year Without Toilet Paper” which presented the ways that the American press expresses undermining views on environmental activism. In what ways does this shift the idea of living with zero net impact as dirty or a negative lifestyle for people to pursue? How does the journalism within America highlight environmentalists as alarmists rather than as civilians attempting to better society?
“No Impact Man” showed Colin Beavan and his family’s journey to have a zero impact on the environment for a year. The experiment was tough to begin with, but I think doing this experiment in New York City makes it much harder because it is a concrete jungle. It is one of the most polluted cities in the United States, and to completely shut out from the surrounding technologies is a challenge, especially when everyone else is emitting a lot of waste. How long do you think Beavan could have lived under such strict conditions? Beavan’s experiment is similar to Thoreau’s Walden which leads me to wonder if Thoreau lived in today’s society, would he have been able to perform his experiment the same as he did during Walden? There are an abundance of technological advancements today than there were during Thoreau’s time, would it have been more of a challenge to live like Beavan did?
In the conclusion of Walden Thoreau says “However mean your life is, meet it and live it… It looks poorest when you are richest. The fault-finder will find faults in paradise” (328). This is a really powerful quote but we need to think about it in a critical way. When Thoreau says this I interpret it as that he is poor in materialistic things and rich in intelligence, this may have been the case back when he was alive, however in today’s time it is really tough to make it when living in poverty, not poverty by choice but real poverty. Just like we talked about in class Thoreau was really privileged, he was given a piece of land and he was able to borrow tools to build his house, all of this was borrowed from his mentor. Thoreau is given so much opportunity to explore his mind as well as his ideas on nature and solitude, talks about how all people should take some time to be spend time alone in nature. My question is how would Thoreau sympathize with people who are not as privileged as he is in him ability to spend time in nature? What would Thoreau suggest for marginalized people who have systems working against them to prevent them from gaining capital as well as knowledge, how can these people be their richest when they are poor and struggling to make ends meet? Could Thoreau actually have meant something else by this quote, is there another way to interpret the quote
In the film, “No Impact Man,” Colin Beavan and his family entertained the idea of no waste by decreasing the amount of harm they are placing on the environment. In Colin’s one year experiment the family gradually eliminated/adjusted their way of living by replacing or getting rid of single use plastics, electricity, meats, trash, and anything that ultimately can cause harm to the environment. Although, the Beavan family went through a lot of physical and mental struggles throughout this experiment, they enjoyed the reflection and reevaluation that came from it. I greatly respect in the film how Colin states that he is not conducting this experiment to force everyone to do this or live this particular way, but more so encourage people to reflect and reevaluating their waste production and environmental impact as well. I can also appreciate how Colin’s experiment brought the family closer and how they enjoyed time spending more times with friends, family, and people within the community. I think it was interesting that so many people became interested in his experiment and he was provided so many outlets/opportunities to share his experience. Overall his idea and educational goals of being “no impact” brings up an important concept of zero waste and reducing environmental harm that is done. But his actual experiment may not be as effective in legitimately reducing waste and being more environmentally friendly. The most significant critique I have of his experiment is that it was more philosophical than statistical, which is interesting because how can you prove you have been less wasteful for the past year without some type of data. For example, when Colin decides to turn off their electricity and use candles instead, how is that less pollution or any better than using electricity. Their family was burning candles for 6 months, which produces CO2, so how is that less or more environmentally friendly than using electricity. An additional critique is that the Beavan’s family was able to conduct this experiment because they had the resources beforehand that they could use.
Connecting Colin’s experiment back to our class discussion on Tuesday (Sept. 1st) about poverty, people who are defined as being poor in terms of not having the same resources as the Beavan’s family could potentially be living the way the Beavan’s family is living during this experiment. The Beavan’s family could be insulting poor people who actually live this way because they are not has economically wealthy.
My question would be how could the Beavan’s family design and create an experiment that allows them to measure their environmental impact statistically and generate data? Additionally, what have we (students, community members, America) done to help reduce our harm to the environment and work toward producing less waste?
The film No Impact Man tells the story of how writer Colin Beaven and his family participate in a year-long experiment to live without having an impact on the environment. This means they cannot produce any trash, use carbon-based transportation, use electricity, or purchase food that is transported from more than 250 miles away from where they live in New York City. Ideally, once the experiment is complete, Colin and his wife Michelle will decide which habits they will continue with and which ones they will eliminate. Colin blogs about his experience and receives a lot of criticism from the public. Many view this experiment as extreme and believe that it will not accomplish anything in the long run. Even environmentalists criticize him claiming that he is giving them a bad reputation. Eventually, the experiment received attention from larger media sources. Colin was featured on the radio and was a guest on a variety of talk shows. One statement that caught my attention was from an interview with Steven Colbert. Colbert says “you may be on my show, but I am not here to spread your particular gospel because I think what you are doing is extremely dangerous” (1:10:48). I was struck by his use of the phrase “extremely dangerous” so I went and watched the full interview. What is not shown in the film is the statement that follows which is “because you are anti-consumerism and being an American is being a consumer”. This leads me to believe that Colbert equates being anti-consumerism to being anti-American, something that is extremely frowned upon. Is consumerism so embedded in our culture that being anti-consumerism implies that you are anti-American? If so, how can we shift away from that mindset?
In the film “no impact man” the beavens found quite a bit of opposition to their experiment, whether it be from within like her not wanting to give up coffee or outside pres to s critiquing them. What would be some issues the US would run into if preforming a similar experiment on a large scale? What kind of critiques would Thoreau have for the beavens?
I thought No Impact Man was a very interesting film. There are several aspects of the movie which I agree with, but there are also many aspects which I seriously question. I really enjoyed the interview with Mayer Vishner towards the later part of the movie (1:07-1:12). In the Conversation, Mayer brings up the point that Colin’s world is almost simplifying the issue of anthropological Climate change to a point where it could be misinterpreted as the only action required is, “To change the lightbulb and recycle their plastic bag” (1:08:50). The conversation then goes on to discuss how the company which Michelle works for has huge ecologically impacts, and it is foolish to think that their actions truly had no impact on the environment (because some of their income was being contributed by Michelle), or that their impact would be offset by their actions. Mayer’s opinions on the really voiced my concerns in understanding the project. What did you all think of this interview/ conversation? Does Mayer have a point? At the end of the movie we see Michelle decide to make several lifestyle changes to have a better impact. With what Mayer stated, do you think she is really become a critical thinker to how her actions impact the environment? Or is she making changes to affect her own view of herself?
In “No Impact Man” the audience sees the Beavan family reject social norms and consumer culture. This rejection of consumerism builds a barrier between them and American culture. Soon, this separation from the environment they’ve always known brings an awaking. The family begins to build better relationships with each other, their friends, and their community. In the same way that Thoreau experiences a spiritual awakening in the natural world, the Beavan family seems to experience a similar awakening in the city. Throughout Walden, Thoreau mostly dismisses human interaction and seems to replace a human relationship with the natural world. Solidarity is key to his transcendentalist vision and possibly the driving point to his spiritual awakening. Do you think Thoreau’s transcendentalist outlook holds him back in experiencing a fully human life? How? Do you think the Beavans are missing out on Thoreau’s spiritual awakening in nature? Can a spiritual awakening in the natural world and spiritual awakening through human bonding fully exist within the current American culture? If so, how? How could society rebuild itself to ensure both plays a key role in American society?
In the film “No Impact Man”, Colin Beavan and his family attempt to have zero environmental impact in a year. In doing so, they give up a variety of activities and lifestyle choices which normally they would partake in (for example, morning coffee). In doing so, they adopt new habits and activities to fill their time. What impact did their new activities have on their relationships with each other and the world around them? Do you think their experiment has been spiritually fulfilling for the Beavans? What similarities and differences does it have with the spiritual impact of Thoreau’s Walden experiment on him? Finally, if you were to undertake the same experiment the Beavins did, do you think you would be spiritually enriched or drained from it?
In “The Pond in Winter”, Thoreau attempts to “sound” or map the depth of the pond, what could be the significance or significance of him doing this? I believe that possibly because Thoreau consistently treats Walden Pond as a reflection of himself, it’s safe to assume that his investigation of the pond’s depths will lead him to discover similarities between himself and the pond. Thoreau is fond of challenging conventional ideas. In Walden Pond’s case, the conventional idea is that the pond is bottomless. Thoreau knows that this can’t be true; no pond is bottomless. But he takes to disproving the conventional idea with a sort of passion. By demonstrating that he was right all along, he also sets himself above ordinary people. “It is remarkable how long men will believe in the bottomlessness of a pond without taking the trouble to sound it.” He’s certainly not that kind of man. Thoreau often uses superlatives to describe Walden Pond. When he sounds it, he discovers that the pond has “a remarkable depth for so small an area.” This is fortunate for Thoreau, who often stresses his own intellectual and philosophical depths. “What if all ponds were shallow?” he asks. He doesn’t need to answer that because, in that case, Walden Pond would be completely ordinary, but overall what do you believe the symbolism of him measuring the depths of the pond is and what is the significance?
In the chapter ‘Spring’ in Walden Thoreau expresses that “few phenomena gave me more delight than to observe the forms which thawing sand and clay assume in flowing down the sides of a deep cut on the railroad” (247). In this statement nature takes the role of entertainment. I think observing nature can be a low impact way of extracting from nature. Nature as entertainment instead of railroads or television is comparatively very slow. What is the benefit of being slowed down? One advantage Thoreau notes is that “we should be blessed if we lived in the present always, and took advantage of every accident that befall us” (255). This is the same question that is raised in No Impact Man. What Michelle and Colin discovered is that replacing quick modern technologies with slow alternatives doesn’t actually waste time, rather it makes “the days feel like they last forever.” How do we move out of believing what seems now to not be true? How do we move forward, societally, believing and understanding that a slowed down life with less actually gives up more of what we need?
**I am trying to reply to Cortney but the website isn’t letting it show up**
Cortney, I like the question you posed and I have been wondering similar things since viewing “No Impact Man.” To me, Michelle represents a more realistic perspective in America. What I mean is that while Colin’s ideals are noble and good for the earth and even line up with what a typical SD student may believe, he seems like a far reach for the average American. Michelle, however, is more approachable because she is honest with the audience about where she lies with her convictions, and throughout the documentary we get to watch those convictions change. I don’t think a complete shift of habits and attitudes would be entirely accepted and successful because of the way consumerism and the way of life Americans now have is so deeply engrained. However, I do think that Michelle is an inspiration that can connect to a typical American who is not already engaged in environmental issues because she is more relatable and shows us that it is possible to change and you don’t have to be already extremely committed to environmentalism to even try. The question I have is based on Michelle’s transformation throughout “No Impact Man,” how does this show us how to connect to and reach people who don’t share our same views about environmentalism and other issues?
and this is Bailey Law
In Thoreau’s “The Bean-Field,” he contemplates his relationship with the food he’s growing and the food’s relationship with the Earth. He observes while tending to his beans every day that he has become more in tune with the rhythms of the natural world. In “No Impact Man,” Colin Beavan frequents a community garden to help a friend grow some vegetables. At one point in the movie, Colin mentions he doesn’t feel like this year of his life is counted by turning a page in a calendar but by the turning of the soil after harvest in the garden. Colin often discusses how important it is to know where your food comes from. This is why he chooses to shop at the farmers market and visit the farms where his food is grown.
Thoreau believes that “husbandry was once a sacred art” but is now “degraded with us, and the farmer lives the meanest of lives.”(165) Husbandry is the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals. With the modern-day meat industry, the use of genetically modified organisms, mass production, and monocropping our relationship with the food we eat is practically non-existent. After harvest, Thoreau had sold some of his crops but he regretted it and said he ‘will not plant beans and corn with so much industry another summer.”(164)
Although the human relationship with food is broken in many cultures, because of our rapid population growth, might many people be dying of hunger if it weren’t for the mass production of food? Is it worth it for humans to sacrifice a spiritual connection with the soil and the food that comes from it in order to survive? If grocery stores stopped selling food one day would most people be able to fend for themselves in the industrialized world we live in today?
“I sat at a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, and obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board (172).”
This quote is from the Conclusion chapter of Walden. I thought this quote served as a good metaphor for how our society operates and it also relates back to something Thoreau talked about in the Visitors chapter. He mentions how when we has visitors he would rather feed them in the spiritual than the material. In the quote above from Conclusion, Thoreau says he “went away hungry,” not meaning from lack of food but rather from lack of any meaningful interactions. The large amounts of fancy food, and displays of wealth did not impress him because there was no sincerity, no genuine people to be with. I feel as though this is how our society operates day in and day out. We cling to the need for money, power, status and in the process lose what it really means to be human. We walk through life unfulfilled, empty, constantly chasing some feeling of purpose that seemingly never arrives. All of those other things are human inventions, or constructs that only hold whatever value society places on them. The true meaning of life can not be found within those things. Thoreau argues only through nature can we discover what it means to truly be alive and enjoy said life. So, what is the purpose of having such a “wealthy” society if all its members are spiritually broken? If we are all so disconnected from nature and the processes that go into sustaining/ promoting life, then what are we doing? What kinds of things would a fulfilling society have to offer?
Thoreau begins solitude with “This is a delicious evening, when the whole body is one sense, and imbibes delight through every pore. I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a part of herself.” (82) This chapter starts of incredibly warm. You can feel how connected he is with the land and his home. It is almost if he is living inside a movie and the movie is nature itself. Throughout Walden Thoreau boast about being one with the land and letting go of all material things that really do not matter. “Solitude” was his time to really observe and break down what the difference between alone and being lonely.
He acknowledges that some people would say that it would “feel lonesome down there” (84) but he denies that feeling of being lonely. He even goes as far as questioning why should he ever feel that way. Thoreau goes on to say “I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude.” But how true is that really? As he continues to write I get a growing sense of melancholy surrounding the idea of being alone. It seems that the loneliness was seeping in. I feel as if he was trying to deny the part of himself that wanted a human connection even if it was a “short interval”. He continues to downplay social interaction between humans calling it “commonly cheap”. Why does he feel the need to deny wanting connections outside of nature? It is not shameful wanting to be alone, even though he says it is.
The visitors he got were human—an old man and an old woman. Were these visitors his subconsciousness way of trying to create the company that Thoreau repeatedly denied needing? If there is not anything I have learned since COVID, there is nothing more human than connecting with other humans. We are never truly alone—even when we feel that we are. The question is how we can decide that our solitude is not just isolation? How can we determine that we have been alone with our thoughts and nature enough to heal from the pain of the world without hiding from it?
In “Conclusion”, Thoreau says “it is remarkable how easily and insensibly we fall into a particular route, and make a beaten track for ourselves. I had not lived there a week before my feet wore a path from my door to the pond-side…” (302). This made me think about how easily humans can fall into a pattern of over-consumption and wastefulness. In “No Impact Man”, we can see Colin Beavan and Michelle notice how they had become trapped in consumerism and capitalistic society. Humans continuously leave a path of destruction and do not realize it until we look back. Thoreau goes on to say “… and though it is five or six years since I trod it, it is still quite distinct” (302). I connect this to when Colin is speaking with the man who gardens and he tells Colin that taking the stairs and consuming responsibly does not erase the damage of corporations and mass production. As humans, we must be conscious as a whole in order to begin to restore the path of destruction we have created. Finally, Thoreau says “the surface of the earth is soft and impressible by the feet of men; and so with the paths which the mind travels” (302). Do you think the Beavan’s began to restore the path of capitalistic delusion that their minds are consumed with? How does one remove the consumerist mindset? Is finding a spiritual connection to nature the only way? Does finding a spiritual connection to nature work in detaching our minds from what we have always known?
There’s a fascinating disconnect between the meaning of the “No Impact Man” experiment and the views that people have on it. The amount of hate and even death threats that people poured upon the family was absolutely ludicrous and unwarranted. In the movie, Michelle meets with a “hater” who essentially called them self-promoting frauds. What this woman comes to say is that she thinks that the majority of people are so filled with hate over the experiment because it makes people reevaluate and feel guilty about their consumerism. It forces people to look at the person in the mirror and shows them that the impacts of their very existence affect others. Which, makes total sense. When you point out a person’s flaws, most likely their first reaction is one of vehement defense and anger. So, what do you think about the hate they’ve received? Do you think it’s mirroring the hate that environmentalism is receiving today? What do you think the answer is to it?
On page 158 Thoreau says, “I would advise you to do all of your work if possible when the dew is on,” this statement is fascinating to me personally because it seems like a traditional piece of advice that had been passed down for generations. I’m curious if anyone else found Thoreau to be a proverb in a sense and whether or not that was intended in his writing or merely a side-effect of spending time tending to and in nature? Following that, Thoreau makes a number of observations viewing man through the lens of nature, like in this quote on page 170, “ As I walked into the woods to see the birds and squirrels , so I walked in the village to see the men and boys,” obviously Thoreau would not consider this harsh, considering the theme of his research and experimentation at this time. But do you think it is dangerous, or unfair, to equate humans with nature, creating the guise that humans are one with nature, when especially by today’s standards most of us have almost completely separated ourselves. How do you think Thoreau would answer this?
My question pertains to Solitude. Similar to last week, I am encountering an individualist undertone in Thoreau’s text, although I suppose that makes sense given that Thoreau has been singing the praises of solitude since before this chapter. In this chapter, Thoreau states that he favors being alone for multiple reasons, including his increased ability to spend time in the “fields” of his mind (comparing the mental efforts of a student to the physical efforts of a farmer). He also seems to believe that interacting with other people within the conventions of the dominant society had a cheapening effect. Unfortunately, my text is without page numbers, but there is a quote that reads “The value of a man is not in his skin, that we should touch him,” which echoes this same argument that contact with others can have a negative impact on their and our intrinsic value. That being said, Thoreau continues to state that none of us are ever alone due to our interconnectedness with the natural world.Thoreau’s understanding of the implications of solitude is a bit troubling. This is because I believe that that problem that Thoreau is faced with is that he is in disagreement with the framework within which human interaction takes place, but he seems to direct his frustration toward the interaction itself. Because Thoreau’s frustration is misdirected, his solution (the pursuit of solitude) is misdirected as well. I’m finding it hard to think of a specific question, but I’m wondering what everyone’s thoughts are… is Thoreau misguided, or am I?
On page 321, Walden is detailing in his conclusion why he “left the woods”, he begins discussing how easily we as humans become trapped in our habits and comfortability as individuals and as a society. For instance, Thoreau says, “How worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity!” (page 321) Obviously Thoreau was a nonconformist in his experience at Walden as well as in his writings, and he definitely supported free thinking, saying on page 322, “If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.” Considering both of these quotes, do you think Thoreau would consider the university system a good method of “building foundations”? Especially for the field of sustainable development that is facing such time sensitive and undervalued issues.
One comment that really caught my attention from the movie No Impact Man is that “If people really thought that you could create an impact with this project, you would not be getting the publicity that you are!” This really struck me because the belief that an individual’s actions have limited impact creates a barricade that limits our ability to understand the changes or opportunities presented to us. Although living the life of no impact is not easy or simple, the idea is to create a simplistic lifestyle that connects you more with the world around you while also reducing the extra burdens within your life brought on my societal and economic expectations. This idea relates with a passage from Thoreau’s book which states that “Our life is frittered away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the rest. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb nail.” These two passages correlate with the relevancy of human impact on today’s society. Going back to the first example from No Impact Man, my question is that if living a life of simplicity and little impact is more efficient, why is it perceived so negatively? How long will our earth be degraded until we finally realize the importance of limiting our impact? Also, why do we as a society continue to market and broadcast ideals that is in place to prevent us from moving forward while disproving and limiting the ideals that sometimes goes against some morals but is set to better our environment and society as a whole?
Julia, I have been thinking about these questions as well. I think that living a life of simplicity would be great. but like wearing holes in your pants, this could be judged by the social norms of society. The large corporations that control much of our daily lives, such as Big Ag and Fossil Fuel companies have created a life of convenience and have been able to make the products we are reliant on so cheap, perpetuating our dependence on such items. By going against the grain and living more sustainably, it sheds light on the issues of everyday norms, and I feel as though some people may get defensive. By challenging social norms, we are also challenging common people who may be unable to afford going into the woods for two years or buying everything from the farmer’s market, which some communities are not as fortunate to have. I’m not even sure that people would have the option to go into the woods like Thoreau anymore because most parcels of land have been commodified at this point. I think that in order to seek change, we must demand it from those who have corporate control over production and consumption. Sure, we can change our personal lives, but does that really impact the system? I also was wondering what purpose Thoreau and Collin, both experimenting with different ways of living, were really intending to do these projects for? It’s easy to say that it was an example of social change, but could it have just been a way to disguise their self-motivated efforts to acquire capital? (Interviews, selling books, becoming famous) Does Thoreau or Collin do certain things in their projects because they are “performing” for an audience? I cannot help but wonder what their true intentions are since they are, from the start, intending on not living those impactful lifestyles after the experiments are over.
In Spring, “One year I went across the middle only five days before it disppeared entirely”(328), this quote is in reference to the ice on the pond that Thoreau had been at. He goes on to talk about how even nature shocks those who have been a part of it for many years like the man who tried to go duck hunting and was surprised when he came to the pond on a warm day and ice still covered it. I think that his point for talking about this is to show that even if we believe we understand and are one with nature we still can’t truly expect to understand nature because of its unpredictability. Nature is unpredictable and we have to deal with that reality rather than always anticipating natures next move. He went on to list when the ponds first day without ice on it each year was and it shows how unpredictable nature can be. Do you think Thoreau would approve of current corporate argoculture (asking because it alters the natural function of nature)? Do you think he would approve of any manipulations of natures for humans benefit?
Unlike Thoreau, Collin and his family, from No Impact Man, decided to have zero impact on the environment for a year. It seemed like they were instead, trying to test themselves than convince other people to live the way they do. While Colin said, “No one has to do what I do” on Good Morning America, it seems like he is still trying to show his lifestyle is achievable and viable, and should be considered.
In “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For,” Thoreau writes , “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” (59). The first part is concerned with a place to stay and the second part is a philosophical contemplation about the meaning of life. Thoreau works both philosophical and practical parts into his work. When Thoreau notes “the essential facts of life” can refer to both necessities to survive but also, the reason of human existence.
Me personally, am trying to understand if both No Impact Man and Walden were trying to test themselves or create social change? What do you think? Did Walden and No Impact man have similar or different motivations?
The film, “No Impact Man” was a very inspiring story to me. From afar, the entire year-long project seemed very extreme and stirred up a reaction as the family received a huge amount of hate from the media. In an interview with Colin and a reporter, she compared his current situation as it “may seem at best, like a scene from an old-fashioned situation” This kind of reminded me of Walden, because Colin, his wife, and his one-year-old daughter all went on this “zero-waste” journey and putting all their energy into living the most simplistic, environmentally friendly, no impact lifestyle as possible. It is all about weighing what is more important, wants vs. need. This is a very tough lifestyle for anyone to endure and can definitely cause some stress for the family. Colin and the daughter seem to be doing great, however, for the wife, as a Starbucks, shopping addicted working mom, seems to be struggling quite a bit. For one, this is partly because of the criticism and as well as the craving of buying clothes, a cup of coffee, and takeout. I really enjoyed what Colin had to say in an interview, he said we are very weak in individual action, “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?” He said in another interview “all of us should learn to do what we can do” and I think that is very useful advice if someone is trying to increase their individual action. And makes me very confident that I would be able to decrease my environmental impact if I went in with a good mindset and took baby steps. My question is, how do you think you would react in this situation? Would you be more like the wife, Michelle, or like Colin? What would be the hardest thing to cut our of your life?
Throughout Walden, Thoreau constantly uses nature as a metaphor to describe his spiritual awakening that he has while staying at the pond For example, in the chapter “Spring”, Thoreau describes his own spiritual “thaw” and revitalization he feels coming on with the transition to spring, similar to the thawing of the ice in Walden Pond. He even describes the pond in terms of his own feelings, saying “It stretched itself and yawned like a waking man with a gradually increasing tumult.” I find it interesting the way Thoreau consistently personifies the surrounding environment as a way to project his own feelings, and likewise he uses nature as a metaphor for describing his spiritual growth. Do you think nature itself can act as a universal tool for giving people a deeper, more profound sense of spirituality, or do you believe it takes a certain type of person, inherently, to develop this appreciation and spirituality as Thoreau did?
In “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”, Thoreau mentions this mindset that he embraced to let his imagination explore. He describes the lake and air as heaven much closer and more important and says that even though his dwelling is much smaller, the pasture is big enough for his imagination (69). He goes on to say “Both time and place were changed, and I dwelt nearer to those parts of the universe and to those eras in history which had most attracted me. Where I lived was as far off as many a region viewed nightly by astronomers” (69). Thoreau seems very critical of the townspeople who toil all of their life but does not seem to take into account their view of a “deliberate” life. Could Thoreau simply be seen as someone who is running from their problems and believes a more simple life is the answer? To what extent should imagination take over reality?
This is going back a little, but Thoreau writes in “Where I lived, What I Lived For” of Walden that “And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, — we never need read of another (p. 76).” While he may be making a good point about some of the “silly” news stories out there, is it true that all news is superfluous and repetitive? Thinking of BLM and the ways in which media has brought attention to repeated state violence and systemic injustice, is Thoreau really right?
Both Thoreau and Colin Beavan (and, reluctantly, Colin’s wife Michelle Conlin) start their experiments on self-reliance from a place of privilege- Thoreau is basically staying in a crude guest house he built on his professor’s country estate, while Beavan lives in a 5th Ave Manhattan co-op. Both are primarily living off of their accumulated capital -both financial and social- for a set amount of time and then dropping the charade and writing books about it. What I find endearing about Colin and Michelle is that they seem much more self-aware of their haplessness and willing to accept or at least explore the contradictory nature of the experiment (the most likable character in the film for me is an older hippie type from the Village who despite his good nature and friendship toward Beavan, lays bare the theatrical hypocrisy of the whole endeavor for Colin). I find myself wondering which is closer to a true experiment? That is to say, which if either is starting with a hypothesis and then following the evidence to whatever conclusion(s) that evidence points to? Or, are both starting with a conclusion and going backward, cherry picking the evidence that supports their “hypothesis”? For me, this is where I give Colin (and really more so Michelle) credit- they accept at least some of the ridiculousness of it by the end, and that to me is much more scientific in nature. The experiment’s evidence pointed in a direction that was not in keeping with the original hypothesis, so he follows the evidence.
“They’re calling us bourgeois fucks.” – Michelle Conlin
I enjoyed watching the film, No Impact Man. It was honestly very inspiring and quite interesting. I loved his commitment to the experiment and how he also used his time to raise awareness for a multitude of environmental issues within his city, New York. By informing his friends and the group of students, he was raising awareness for sustainability and made it seem more in reach. Although his wife cheated the experiment a few times by grabbing coffee, I still appreciated her support of her husbands experiment. Watching all of the obstacles that the family had made me realize just how hard it is to live a sustainable lifestyle. In what ways can we, people that are passionate about sustainability, make it easier for everyone to live a sustainable lifestyle? Or.. Is it out of our hands and more up to people in office to make sustainability more achievable for the public?
I found the film No Impact Man to be a curious venture into an often repeated experiment of sustainability and living a “Zero-Waste” lifestyle. Colin Bevan along with his wife and daughter take it a step further when they turn off the electricity in their NYC apartment for six months. This, along with their abandonment of toilet paper and the whimsical vibe of Colin and Michelle might have been a step too far for most people, earning them a fair bit of criticism, especially from a local man working in a community garden who rips their experiment to shreds. I was surprised that the landlord, the city and social services even allowed the experiment to continue at that point. Their experiment had the noblest of intentions and I think it’s pretty neat they did this inside of NYC, however it comes across as a lighthearted venture. A few years ago I lived and worked at a primitive wilderness camp and homestead for about 6 months (a bit of a Thoreau myself, minus the wealth). We had toilet paper in the outhouses, but no electricity on the site and our running water came primarily from a creek. We recycled urine in sawdust to add nitrogen back to the gardens, composted our food scraps or fed them to the animals that would eventually feed us. Horses pulled our plows and our understanding of local eating was whatever came from a few acres around us. I’d like to think that both Colin Bevan and Thoreau would be proud of the work I did there. However, after I reflect on my personal experiences, watched Colin’s journey and read Thoreau’s account of the wilderness I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a highly unappealing lifestyle to the majority of people residing in developed nations, especially the United States. While sustainable development students might find green lifestyle changes fun and impactful many people do not. For example Michelle Bevan despised her husbands compost box due to the bugs inside which is a widespread reason why many people avoid composting. How can we convince millions of people to make some serious lifestyle changes that are unappealing and widely considered “overkill” while still maintaining pressure on major corporations to reel in their emissions? Is it not our patriotic duty under capitalism to consume more, endlessly?
In “Solitude” Thoreau writes about how less tends to be more. While staying at the Walden pond alone and around nature, Thoreau learns how to value society through a different lens. He values it from afar; as in having less of the chaos, less of the filtering, less of the anxieties gives you the ability to become more in tune with nature, as well as mind body and spirit. He believes that solitude can create happiness. He goes on to say “I was suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in the very pattering of the drops, and in every sound and sight around my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once like an atmosphere sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of human neighborhood insignificant, and I have never thought of them since.” I chose this quote because I feel that it explains how Thoreau felt; felt as though society disappeared, all the superficial and materialistic things of the world just vanished and nature, a sustaining and giving thing was so welcoming, raw and peaceful at the same time. I feel that he felt as though leaving all those worldly things behind, you are able to experience happiness, balance, yet maintaining a respect and honor in what the human-world does offer. So, my question for this week would be do you all think that Thoreau would suggest taking society back to more simplistic and minimalist lifestyles? Would that make society more peaceful, more happy, less difficult?