How would Thoreau react to the experiment in the film?
Thoreau puts a lot a value on nature and the family is very much still in the hustle and bustle of the city. We feel he would have encouraged more time spent out in nature.
We think he would have wanted them to jump all in, instead of doing it in phases.
He would appreciate slowing down and adjusting to natural rhythms.
The family connects still so much with the social aspects of the world while Thoreau distances himself from both social and material interactions for a possibly more authentic experiment.
Comparing the book and the movie, what are some resources that Thoreau as well as the Beaven family neglect to mention? Was this neglect intentional? If so how would this neglect further their goal or detract from it? Does the Beaven family’s neglect come across as arrogant or utilitarian? Would Thoreau criticize or complement the family, and why?
We talked about how Colin and Michelle in No Impact Man were complete opposites. They lived in New York City where they had access to transportation, farmers markets, water coming from the faucet, and access to help. We found it interesting that they were attempting to have a no impact lifestyle in a mass consumption society and culture. The interactions between the movie audience, media comments, and family/friends impacted their lives. In comparison to Thoreau, the family had a community to rely on and social media interactions that continuously made them question their choice of living. Thoreau intentionally isolated himself and sought to connect and be guided by nature. One intersection of No Impact Man and Thoreau’s Walden is the quality of interaction between the people around them and their lived experience.
How has solitude and community relationships change their relationship to nature? How do you think Thoreau would respond to the environmentalist backlash from social media? Would Colin do the experiment if he was not writing a book?-What are his intentions?
We discussed the difference between true sustainability and perceived sustainability.
Both Thoreau and No Impact Man focus on living in a more sustainable way where people are more connected to nature and the food they grow. They both mention how they find themselves happier and more fulfilled living this way of life. They both have a closer connection to food and growing food than many people, especially with how disconnected people are from how their food is grown today. While Thoreau focuses more on nature and living in it No Impact Man focuses on how a person could live to affect the environment less. However, this way of living may not be ideal or even possible for some people. For example, No Impact Man was based only on his ideals and wants with little to no focus on the wants and needs of his family. His wife clearly didn’t enjoy giving up what she wanted and the child not only had no choice but was given no real precedence in the film. In addition, both Thoreau and No Impact Man made the choice to live the way of life they chose, they weren’t forced or born into it and really they only give up what they wanted to give up. While both Thoreau and No Impact Man make good points about how people can live more sustainably and the positives of living in connection to food and nature both also fail to think outside of themselves and how realistic it would be for most people to pursue a way of life as they have. Other people may have restrictions preventing them from living a sustainable life as discussed in these topics, some people are physically disabled or have dietary restrictions that make it impossible for them to meet some of the standards shown. Do you think most people could attain these types of sustainability? Are there different kinds of sustainability? What kind of sustainable lifestyle choices should people make today?
Our group discussion of No Impact Man and the connections the film had to our readings about Thoreau had to do with the notion of purpose and who the book/film and Thoreau’s experiment were about. We talked a lot about self growth, and how both Thoreau and (it seemed) Colin were experimenting with how little they could do with, for the benefits of the mind and the environment. One specific comment in our group that Philip mentioned was about how the documentary was all about helping the environment, with one situation being the cutting of the use of toilet paper as a way to contribute to helping with issues of deforestation and extraction of natural resources. However, the documentary was also advertising this new book that was going to be coming out, written by this ‘No Impact Man,’ that was to be printed and sold on paper. Our group talked about how the two instances of not using toilet paper, but then mass producing this physical book, were fairly contradicting. This created questions in our group about whether the film was truly for this kind of experimentation with environmental, and mental, growth, or if it was really more of a way to promote the selling of the book that was to be coming out soon after. This then led us back to the question of who Thoreau’s writings, as well as the film, were for. The film talked a decent bit about how individual action causes people to be more engaged which then leads to more collective action. Could this be what Thoreau was also aiming for in his writing? Did Thoreau write with the intention of his individual action snowballing into collective action by many, or was his experiment truly for himself and his journey with self growth?
A connection I noticed immediately was a pretty obvious one, they both focus on individual practices that support sustainability. Although they had this connection, I found myself wondering what would Thoreau think about the film? Would he agree or disagree with No Impact Man’s points? I thought that No Impact Man came off as selfish at times, he was promoting how to live a sustainable life but was only going off of his ideals even though his family did not life giving up these things. He didn’t discuss various ways that could work for others. What do you think about this observation?
Our group pointed out that both Thoreau and Colin’s experiments were motivated and tainted by outside perceptions. Thoreau was being observed by his community members family and friends, and his future readers, Colin had his audience in mind as he built his experiment by filming and writing a book about it. How does the element of observation interfere with the authenticity of both Thoreau and Colin Beavan’s projects? Were they doing these experiments out of conviction or to seek attention? How could you study people who live simplistically with pure intentions?
We also debated how the setting of No Impact Man and Walden impacted their success. How did living in New York City make it easier for the No Impact family and potentially more difficult in some ways compared to Thoreau to live simplistically and with minimal carbon footprint?
In watching “No Impact Man” I discovered the film to be wide and diverse in scope of reaching for a not-so-common goal, to have little to no negative effect on one’s own environment and personal health. Which seems to be a daunting task in this day and age, that requires much sacrifice, forethought, planning and knowledge. There were also many idiosyncrasies present in this pursuit. His obsession with the worm bin most notably. I see this desire to be directly involved with the composting process, living with it quite literally, but a large part of me wanted to see it stored in the outdoor garden, especially when he released all of the flies. It seems to be a large part of the documentary was concerned with the life of their brilliant daughter, in preparation for a potential second child. This concerned me for her well-being. He attained much notoriety, illustrating our media culture values not only for the rich and famous, but also those with a noteworthy mission, so that was refreshing in a sense. I wonder, how much impact do you think he made on contemporary culture by leading an example of positive consumption, and do you think the omissions they made to their diet and other consumer choices were mostly beneficial or wise overall to their own family and society’s well-being?
I enjoyed the film “No Impact Man” a lot and felt like it was a great film to watch alongside reading Thoreau. One quote which we discussed last week in class came to mind though when thinking of differences between the time Thoreau spent in nature vs. the year Colin Beavan spent trying not to make a negative impact on the planet. Thoreau says, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front not 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.” I felt like this quote showed a little bit of the differences between Thoreau and Beavan. Colin Beavan did use this year to live deliberately and found what was essential to life, but he did so within walls of concrete, very seperated from Nature. His motives were genuine and good, I believe, but I think that they miss what Thoreau is trying to convey with his actions. Living alongside nature and with nature, without having a negative imapct, will create a good life. Would Colin’s experiment have had a larger impact on his audience had he been outside of NYC? Is Colin’s experiment lacking anything by not having this connection with nature? Do you disagree and believe that Colin does have a connection with nature, but that its just different than Thoreau?
Our groups’ main critique of No Impact Man was Colins’ lack of awareness of the privilege he had in being able to attempt a project and the exclusion of intersectionality within his argument for his theory of change. It seems as though he believes sustainability resides in a vacuum. Sustainability is non-specific to cultural needs, or class consciousness, nor does it even consider the dimensions of access to technologies to enhance sustainable living. Regardless, Colin definitely achieved the romanticization of poverty (or voluntary poverty) that Thoreau was so adamant about. So, then, does the example outlined in No Impact Man emblematic of Thoreau’s notion of learning by doing rather than theorizing, or were the Beavins more cosplaying social change without altering fundamental problems? How did Colin’s privilege enable him to participate in the No Impact project? Where is the distinction between voluntary poverty and maintaining modern practices of existence that both Thoreau and Colin both chose to give up?
Both Thoreau and No Impact Man focus on living in a more sustainable way where people are more connected to nature and the food they grow. They both mention how they find themselves happier and more fulfilled living this way of life. However both also live in a very individualistic way where their perception on a “better way of life” or a “more sustainable way of life” is only focused on them and their needs and wants. This way of living may not be ideal or even possible for some people. There are many people living in this world today that do not have access or means to be able to live a sustainable lifestyle as portrayed in the film. There are many factors behind this such financial instability, lack of transportation, and physical restraints like disabilities or health issues. Through this we are able to see how Colin might be practicing perceived sustainability rather than actual sustainability. For example, No Impact Man was based only on his ideals and wants with little to no focus on the wants and needs to his family. His wife clearly didn’t enjoy giving up what she wanted and the child not only had no choice but was given no real precedence in the film. In addition, both Thoreau and No Impact Man made the choice to live the way of life they chose, they weren’t forced or born into it and they only give up what they want. Is it possible for fully sustainable lifestyles to exist without individualistic ideals coming into play?
One thing I thought of is how no-impact man and Thoreau’s lifestyles are not feasible or practical for everyone, so how can some ideas from both the film and Thoreau’s writings be used in a more practical sense, and what aspects are universal and can be applied in order for us to achieve sustainability on a larger scale? In addition, both achieved a temporary, minimalist living relative to their own beginnings. The notion of temporary is superficial from an environmental and ethical stance. Sustainability and lifestyles depend on longevity, can it also be achieved on a small scale, or will it only reach the relativity of our own accommodations, comforts, and duration?
I think the comparison to Thoreau’s writing and No Impact Man is similar in some regard. However, the fact that No Impact Man involved a family and Thoreau is out in the wild alone is a key difference. Their family is in a congested NYC and as seen in the film, the family does not agree on most things. The wife is material driven and does not want to give up certain things while the husband is ready to go all in and legitimately ready to cut all “necessities”. This also comes back to what Thoreau was trying to prove, what do we really need to live? I think Thoreau had a better experience of finding that due to everything he found was natural, rather than being in the concrete jungle of New York City and having tempting access to a lot. Do you think Thoreau would try this experience in a large city rather than the middle of the woods if he was alive today?
We talked about the separation of nature and home as Thoureau offers the home he built as a cage away from nature. We wanted to know if Thoureau”s definition of simple living (clothes, food, shelter, fuel) would compare to Collin Beavin’s definition for his experiment. We see that there are many differences and similarities with both but if Thoureau was here, what would he think and say about the experiment and performative aspect of it?
Similar intrests between Thoreau and Colin. Both experimenters. Philosophers for minimalist impacts. Both want to try to rewrite the way in which they live by making less of an impact on the environment. Both perform crazy experiments that were strange in their time.
Both want to prove to them selves about the social structure of he world is optional. Buys local to both support local buisness and to avoid trash. What he is trying to ask is – do we have to be a disposable culture? Don’t wait on congress or the world to do something. This is similar to Thoreau, in which he in not expecting other people to do what he is doing but he is showing that it is possible. Colin is more focused on minimizing his impact on the environment, but Thoreau is doing that as well as trying to connect himself with nature.
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Hayden, Lily, Anna, Paul
How would Thoreau react to the experiment in the film?
Thoreau puts a lot a value on nature and the family is very much still in the hustle and bustle of the city. We feel he would have encouraged more time spent out in nature.
We think he would have wanted them to jump all in, instead of doing it in phases.
He would appreciate slowing down and adjusting to natural rhythms.
The family connects still so much with the social aspects of the world while Thoreau distances himself from both social and material interactions for a possibly more authentic experiment.
Cadie, Ridge, Cade, Steve
Comparing the book and the movie, what are some resources that Thoreau as well as the Beaven family neglect to mention? Was this neglect intentional? If so how would this neglect further their goal or detract from it? Does the Beaven family’s neglect come across as arrogant or utilitarian? Would Thoreau criticize or complement the family, and why?
Sara, Morgan, Rosie, Audrey, Cole
We talked about how Colin and Michelle in No Impact Man were complete opposites. They lived in New York City where they had access to transportation, farmers markets, water coming from the faucet, and access to help. We found it interesting that they were attempting to have a no impact lifestyle in a mass consumption society and culture. The interactions between the movie audience, media comments, and family/friends impacted their lives. In comparison to Thoreau, the family had a community to rely on and social media interactions that continuously made them question their choice of living. Thoreau intentionally isolated himself and sought to connect and be guided by nature. One intersection of No Impact Man and Thoreau’s Walden is the quality of interaction between the people around them and their lived experience.
How has solitude and community relationships change their relationship to nature? How do you think Thoreau would respond to the environmentalist backlash from social media? Would Colin do the experiment if he was not writing a book?-What are his intentions?
Bella, Cat, Grace, Laney, Rustyn
We discussed the difference between true sustainability and perceived sustainability.
Both Thoreau and No Impact Man focus on living in a more sustainable way where people are more connected to nature and the food they grow. They both mention how they find themselves happier and more fulfilled living this way of life. They both have a closer connection to food and growing food than many people, especially with how disconnected people are from how their food is grown today. While Thoreau focuses more on nature and living in it No Impact Man focuses on how a person could live to affect the environment less. However, this way of living may not be ideal or even possible for some people. For example, No Impact Man was based only on his ideals and wants with little to no focus on the wants and needs of his family. His wife clearly didn’t enjoy giving up what she wanted and the child not only had no choice but was given no real precedence in the film. In addition, both Thoreau and No Impact Man made the choice to live the way of life they chose, they weren’t forced or born into it and really they only give up what they wanted to give up. While both Thoreau and No Impact Man make good points about how people can live more sustainably and the positives of living in connection to food and nature both also fail to think outside of themselves and how realistic it would be for most people to pursue a way of life as they have. Other people may have restrictions preventing them from living a sustainable life as discussed in these topics, some people are physically disabled or have dietary restrictions that make it impossible for them to meet some of the standards shown. Do you think most people could attain these types of sustainability? Are there different kinds of sustainability? What kind of sustainable lifestyle choices should people make today?
Kaitlyn, Hayden, Phillip, Logan, Zoe
Our group discussion of No Impact Man and the connections the film had to our readings about Thoreau had to do with the notion of purpose and who the book/film and Thoreau’s experiment were about. We talked a lot about self growth, and how both Thoreau and (it seemed) Colin were experimenting with how little they could do with, for the benefits of the mind and the environment. One specific comment in our group that Philip mentioned was about how the documentary was all about helping the environment, with one situation being the cutting of the use of toilet paper as a way to contribute to helping with issues of deforestation and extraction of natural resources. However, the documentary was also advertising this new book that was going to be coming out, written by this ‘No Impact Man,’ that was to be printed and sold on paper. Our group talked about how the two instances of not using toilet paper, but then mass producing this physical book, were fairly contradicting. This created questions in our group about whether the film was truly for this kind of experimentation with environmental, and mental, growth, or if it was really more of a way to promote the selling of the book that was to be coming out soon after. This then led us back to the question of who Thoreau’s writings, as well as the film, were for. The film talked a decent bit about how individual action causes people to be more engaged which then leads to more collective action. Could this be what Thoreau was also aiming for in his writing? Did Thoreau write with the intention of his individual action snowballing into collective action by many, or was his experiment truly for himself and his journey with self growth?
A connection I noticed immediately was a pretty obvious one, they both focus on individual practices that support sustainability. Although they had this connection, I found myself wondering what would Thoreau think about the film? Would he agree or disagree with No Impact Man’s points? I thought that No Impact Man came off as selfish at times, he was promoting how to live a sustainable life but was only going off of his ideals even though his family did not life giving up these things. He didn’t discuss various ways that could work for others. What do you think about this observation?
Olive Burress
Josh Baucom
RJ Brooks
Zara Wilson
Our group pointed out that both Thoreau and Colin’s experiments were motivated and tainted by outside perceptions. Thoreau was being observed by his community members family and friends, and his future readers, Colin had his audience in mind as he built his experiment by filming and writing a book about it. How does the element of observation interfere with the authenticity of both Thoreau and Colin Beavan’s projects? Were they doing these experiments out of conviction or to seek attention? How could you study people who live simplistically with pure intentions?
We also debated how the setting of No Impact Man and Walden impacted their success. How did living in New York City make it easier for the No Impact family and potentially more difficult in some ways compared to Thoreau to live simplistically and with minimal carbon footprint?
In watching “No Impact Man” I discovered the film to be wide and diverse in scope of reaching for a not-so-common goal, to have little to no negative effect on one’s own environment and personal health. Which seems to be a daunting task in this day and age, that requires much sacrifice, forethought, planning and knowledge. There were also many idiosyncrasies present in this pursuit. His obsession with the worm bin most notably. I see this desire to be directly involved with the composting process, living with it quite literally, but a large part of me wanted to see it stored in the outdoor garden, especially when he released all of the flies. It seems to be a large part of the documentary was concerned with the life of their brilliant daughter, in preparation for a potential second child. This concerned me for her well-being. He attained much notoriety, illustrating our media culture values not only for the rich and famous, but also those with a noteworthy mission, so that was refreshing in a sense. I wonder, how much impact do you think he made on contemporary culture by leading an example of positive consumption, and do you think the omissions they made to their diet and other consumer choices were mostly beneficial or wise overall to their own family and society’s well-being?
I enjoyed the film “No Impact Man” a lot and felt like it was a great film to watch alongside reading Thoreau. One quote which we discussed last week in class came to mind though when thinking of differences between the time Thoreau spent in nature vs. the year Colin Beavan spent trying not to make a negative impact on the planet. Thoreau says, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front not 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.” I felt like this quote showed a little bit of the differences between Thoreau and Beavan. Colin Beavan did use this year to live deliberately and found what was essential to life, but he did so within walls of concrete, very seperated from Nature. His motives were genuine and good, I believe, but I think that they miss what Thoreau is trying to convey with his actions. Living alongside nature and with nature, without having a negative imapct, will create a good life. Would Colin’s experiment have had a larger impact on his audience had he been outside of NYC? Is Colin’s experiment lacking anything by not having this connection with nature? Do you disagree and believe that Colin does have a connection with nature, but that its just different than Thoreau?
Andrew, Nate, Nona, Rachel, and Ben,
Our groups’ main critique of No Impact Man was Colins’ lack of awareness of the privilege he had in being able to attempt a project and the exclusion of intersectionality within his argument for his theory of change. It seems as though he believes sustainability resides in a vacuum. Sustainability is non-specific to cultural needs, or class consciousness, nor does it even consider the dimensions of access to technologies to enhance sustainable living. Regardless, Colin definitely achieved the romanticization of poverty (or voluntary poverty) that Thoreau was so adamant about. So, then, does the example outlined in No Impact Man emblematic of Thoreau’s notion of learning by doing rather than theorizing, or were the Beavins more cosplaying social change without altering fundamental problems? How did Colin’s privilege enable him to participate in the No Impact project? Where is the distinction between voluntary poverty and maintaining modern practices of existence that both Thoreau and Colin both chose to give up?
Both Thoreau and No Impact Man focus on living in a more sustainable way where people are more connected to nature and the food they grow. They both mention how they find themselves happier and more fulfilled living this way of life. However both also live in a very individualistic way where their perception on a “better way of life” or a “more sustainable way of life” is only focused on them and their needs and wants. This way of living may not be ideal or even possible for some people. There are many people living in this world today that do not have access or means to be able to live a sustainable lifestyle as portrayed in the film. There are many factors behind this such financial instability, lack of transportation, and physical restraints like disabilities or health issues. Through this we are able to see how Colin might be practicing perceived sustainability rather than actual sustainability. For example, No Impact Man was based only on his ideals and wants with little to no focus on the wants and needs to his family. His wife clearly didn’t enjoy giving up what she wanted and the child not only had no choice but was given no real precedence in the film. In addition, both Thoreau and No Impact Man made the choice to live the way of life they chose, they weren’t forced or born into it and they only give up what they want. Is it possible for fully sustainable lifestyles to exist without individualistic ideals coming into play?
Chesney, Hannah, Dalton, Charlie, Stella
One thing I thought of is how no-impact man and Thoreau’s lifestyles are not feasible or practical for everyone, so how can some ideas from both the film and Thoreau’s writings be used in a more practical sense, and what aspects are universal and can be applied in order for us to achieve sustainability on a larger scale? In addition, both achieved a temporary, minimalist living relative to their own beginnings. The notion of temporary is superficial from an environmental and ethical stance. Sustainability and lifestyles depend on longevity, can it also be achieved on a small scale, or will it only reach the relativity of our own accommodations, comforts, and duration?
I think the comparison to Thoreau’s writing and No Impact Man is similar in some regard. However, the fact that No Impact Man involved a family and Thoreau is out in the wild alone is a key difference. Their family is in a congested NYC and as seen in the film, the family does not agree on most things. The wife is material driven and does not want to give up certain things while the husband is ready to go all in and legitimately ready to cut all “necessities”. This also comes back to what Thoreau was trying to prove, what do we really need to live? I think Thoreau had a better experience of finding that due to everything he found was natural, rather than being in the concrete jungle of New York City and having tempting access to a lot. Do you think Thoreau would try this experience in a large city rather than the middle of the woods if he was alive today?
Gabby
Emma
Maya
Hannah
We talked about the separation of nature and home as Thoureau offers the home he built as a cage away from nature. We wanted to know if Thoureau”s definition of simple living (clothes, food, shelter, fuel) would compare to Collin Beavin’s definition for his experiment. We see that there are many differences and similarities with both but if Thoureau was here, what would he think and say about the experiment and performative aspect of it?
Similar intrests between Thoreau and Colin. Both experimenters. Philosophers for minimalist impacts. Both want to try to rewrite the way in which they live by making less of an impact on the environment. Both perform crazy experiments that were strange in their time.
Both want to prove to them selves about the social structure of he world is optional. Buys local to both support local buisness and to avoid trash. What he is trying to ask is – do we have to be a disposable culture? Don’t wait on congress or the world to do something. This is similar to Thoreau, in which he in not expecting other people to do what he is doing but he is showing that it is possible. Colin is more focused on minimizing his impact on the environment, but Thoreau is doing that as well as trying to connect himself with nature.