Comfort in a Post-Modern Age

tamilee · #41 03/01/10, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvstuck

Tamilee,

Rock on.... Some people don't understand where the wife and are are headed... We had to put cutting the electric off for a while as we are adopting two children. We both sew, she can knit and crochet, I can't knit but do crochet... We are looking for a good loom for a good price so that we can loom our own fabrics. We raise out own food in the garden and have plenty of meat and eggs in the barn. Too bad we aren't neighbors... I often dream of living on a very large parcel of land with neighbors over equal minds. I am always looking for tool from the past, plows, buck saws, wood working tool with no cords...etc....

Some people enjoy the hustle and bustle of a convenient lifestyle, personally I like working hard at slowing down. Hard work in the garden with manual labor makes a lot of sense to me. My wife was laid off late last year and will not be returning to work, we have almost everything paid off (exception... very small mortgage)

I swear if I could figure out how to make a profit farming, I'd never work again away from the farm.... Think of me as a mix between Charles Ingals and John Walton....LOL

Oh, Wow ! WV! I loved weaving in school. I was a chemistry major, bio. minor but found weaving VERY relaxing. I too have wanted a loom for a long time but my, are they pricey.
My dh and I built our own house 30 years ago. WE built it 24' x 32' with the money we had. It cost us $6,500. We had a Franklin wood stove that we heated water on and I bathed in a washtub in front of it. I washed clothes by hand until dh bought me a speed queen, it was one of those round ones with a wringer. Then people in the neighborhood began to talk and my mil was embarassed that I had a Speed Queen so she bought me a shiny new rectangular washing machine. I came home from visiting my mum one day and my Speed Queen was gone and there was the machine. Mil was proud of herself and called people to tell them about it.
The problem?
My Speed Queen had a hose at the bottom that was lowered from the back into a pipe to drain the wash water. I added water with a garden hose.
That new one did not get clothes as clean and had an electric water pump to pump the water, so it used much more electricity.
The Lehman's Hand Washer is even BETTER than the Speed Queen. It is non-electric ,I manually move the agitator bar from side to side and I can visually check the clothes to see if they are clean and wash until I am satisfied. The wringer on the back is non-electric too.

soulsurvivor · #42 03/01/10, 07:52 AM

The human body can survive without a lot of comfort. We only have to look at Haiti to see evidence of that. But why on earth would anyone want to? The thrill of a challenge against all odds could be a reason, or finding personal comfort in the simple things of life could be a reason, or you've never had the personal freedom to explore diversity may yet be another reason for rejecting comforts.

wellll, I've learned as much as I want to about not having personal comforts. I can live without a lot of those, but there are certain specific things I require to stay around as a nice person. One of those is a good bath. Do not get between me and my need for a good soaking bath or else you'll be in some jeopardy for your continued good health. I know from past camping experiences that I can exist a month without my bathtub soaking, but not a day past that. I already know it's the point where the physical meets the mental me and the physical wins.

AngieM2 · #43 03/01/10, 07:55 AM

tamilee - I'd have been so annoyed (polite word) if someone came in and took what I liked and it was working for me, and replaced it with something I didn't want. Especially for the reason you stated. I'd be trying my darnest to get back the washing machine that I liked.

A lot of times, these improvements, are not improvements.

Angie

cvk · #44 03/01/10, 08:31 AM

When I think of giving up comforts I think of people not having two and three cars, a snowmobile, ATV, speed boats, cable tv, a tv in every room, huge houses for just a couple people, eating out contstantly and all of those frills instead of someone sensible having to give up their washer and go beat clothes on a rock. Having said that I have to admit that we lived here for several years burning wood, pumping water from the well, using a path for the bathroom, washing clothes by hand etc. and we weren't depressed or suicidal. Fact is we had a ball! Those things aren't that important. What is important is medical care, food, water and shelter. A lavish lifestyle is not necessary in order to be happy. Happiness comes from within.

wyld thang · #45 03/01/10, 02:10 PM

(posted 2x" weird)

wyld thang · #46 03/01/10, 02:14 PM

I still think aging bones and extrapolating proof of a shelf life is speculation without having actually been there(and we certainly aren't finding EVERYONE's bones neither). Nutrition, moderation of workload, luck in avoiding war or accident all contribute to a long(er) life than someone unhealthy and unlucky--all throughout history. If there was a gradual evolutionary overall lenthening of shelf life across the species, it would also occur in other mammals, say dogs and cats in the USA(who live lucky pet lives but are also getting fat and arthritic). How does lifespan pan out for peoples that have been relatively doign the same thing for eons?

I suppose one could use the example of trees(like conifers) and those old growth monsters. They are a small part who were lucky enough to have been planted in good growing, to have avoided fire at the right time in their lives, to have been amoung other similar big trees to help withstand storms. MOST trees of that species died "young", but the genetics are there to live long with the right conditions. I think it's the same thing with humans. Anyone subjected to hard work will have degenerative evidence at a young age, my grandma had an old woman's back at 25 from 20 YEARS of being bent over picking potatoes(yet she lived to 90

).

I dont' have all the journal reading, links, experts or research to back up my theory, all I've got is my own observation (as well as scientists are always revising ad nauseum

). Sure there is ebb and flow to evolutionary changes, but I'm just saying I doubt there is that much change regarding shelf life--damage/abuse is one thing, battery life is another.

Just like there is a threshold for how fast a horse can run, despite intense breeding/training/nutrition or even chemicals they can't get a horse to run faster than about 35 mph(or so). They can get more horses up to that limit(breeding for better genes etc), but there is a design limit that draws from ergos, organ capacity etc in how a horse is designed. I think that is what is happening to humans as well, there is that age limit, and nowadays with nutrition and good luck more people can get to that limit/reach old age, not that the limit is itself improving.

And then I can go on the tangent that long life in most "gifted" countries (like USA) can be chalked up to lack of warfare and vaccines and emergency medicine, rather than better nutrition(which would be in those countries someone mentioned, Japan, Mediterranean, who ALSO enjoy a much better healthy quality in old age). Nutrition and lifestyle go a loooooooong way.

But the original question was "comfort", where do you draw your strength, from outside things or from an inner source.

Ernie · #47 03/01/10, 02:49 PM

Wyld Thang, check out a book called "Stone Age Economics" by Marshall Sahlins.

In that book, the author uses actual anthropological evidence gathered in the field to support your very theory. Anthropologists followed actual primitive tribes around and calculated their lifespans as well as how much time they spent per day providing for their basic needs.

At the end you'll begin to see that the "earlier peoples died young and had nasty lives" crowd are just absolutely wrong. Even in primitive jungles like Borneo, tribesmen spend only an average of 2 hours per day supplying their basic needs (with women spending an average of 2.5 hours). Beyond just the time they spend having to survive, they also live well into their 70's.

It's true that more primitive peoples had a higher mortality rate and also diseases that are entirely curable now were a huge problem then, but if you survived infancy, warfare, and deadly disease (as the majority did) then you lived a long and fruitful life.

I guess that's also part of the problem. We Americans in our "modern" time live a long time, but when you consider that those last 20 years modern medicine has tacked on to our lives are likely to be spend in a nursing home alone as opposed to dying in your 70's surrounded by friends and a large extended family ... I'm not so sure we've come out ahead.

Modern medicine's main purpose seems to be to extend your life so that you will have to allocate MORE resources to modern medicine.

wendle · #48 03/01/10, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristyACB

To the person who asked why women have menopause if our design life is about 30-35 years.

Good Question!

Another poster disagreed with the example of long lived people in another country in the modern era.

I'm talking about us looooooong ago. I mean, as a species before modern era and before civilization.

The best information out there, and it is pretty good, shows that most early humans had significant wear on the joints, long bones, and facial joints by the time they were early adulthood. Biologically early adulthood of modern standards around 17.

Changes in the shapes of the pelvis show that females more than likely went into puberty and were capable of reproduction very early, as in 8-10, possibly before. Pelvis configurations that show females carried offspring to term at ages as young as 10 in surviving skeletons, again probably even before. Tooth eruption (which has also slowed some since then) still shows them having not had all permanent teeth erupted yet clearly carried to term.

Menopause also appears to have slowed significantly for us. There are items like specific bone thinning and other items that show up in surprisingly young women based on bone sutures. Very few women who might have shown themselves as post menopausal have been found so getting to that age, even with a much earlier onset, appears to be pretty rare. Severe arthritis isn't usually found in many joints, but the joints in which it is found, it is truly severe particularly for such young people.

The human body is pretty remarkable, but the bones are essentially those of a modified quadraped rather than a true biped. It leaves several weak points that are subject to intense wear, like knees and the lower back.

The body you live in now is the product of much more evolution that our ancestors. In some ways it is better (our joints are becoming a bit finer and more flexible) and in many ways much worse (we are much weaker overall in joint strength, bone strength, sturdiness and even some of our senses). It is our improvements in living and medicine that let us live so much longer. We just don't wear them out as fast.

If you take a review of the literature, you'll find that even when the bones can be very precisely found via many methods, the age of the person themselves can be very difficult. We tend to want to say they are much older than later studies show them to be. Mostly because they aged so quickly and so dramatically at such young ages.

So, basically, when I say our bodies as they are only have a "shelf life" of 30-35 years, I'm speaking of us as a Human Animal, living in the way in which we originally developed in the wild. The fact that we've doubled that span and for many, even tripled it, is a true testament to our ingenuity and strength of will and mind. And a good reason to have a nice mattress

Those modern primitives that live very long lives are something to look toward for inspiration and information, surely. There were probably pockets of people in some places in the long ago that did better too. In general, they didn't though. There is something to be said for being able to have year round nutrition of decent quality, shelter over your head in the winter and sufficient clothing for the climate.

Where did you find this info?
You don't think we've evolved to live longer?
That long ago, we were still being eaten by saber toothed tigers?

wendle · #49 03/01/10, 03:30 PM

I completely agree with your theory Ernie, we are becoming soft as a species.
I keep telling my kids, it doesn't matter if our living room furniture matches. There's no value in keeping up with the Jone's, and I don't care how you hold your fork. It's better to work for what you have. I believe you need to know your basic needs, and take care of that first. Nowadays, not only do people think they are entitled to all these extra comforts, they don't have any idea how to survive for a week or two without outside help. This is not including electricity or cell phones.
Most people will panic , in a serious crisis, and look to the government for help instead of preparing. I don't want to be anywhere near others if this happens, because it won't be pretty.

ChristyACB · #50 03/01/10, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

Wyld Thang, check out a book called "Stone Age Economics" by Marshall Sahlins.

In that book, the author uses actual anthropological evidence gathered in the field to support your very theory. Anthropologists followed actual primitive tribes around and calculated their lifespans as well as how much time they spent per day providing for their basic needs.

At the end you'll begin to see that the "earlier peoples died young and had nasty lives" crowd are just absolutely wrong. Even in primitive jungles like Borneo, tribesmen spend only an average of 2 hours per day supplying their basic needs (with women spending an average of 2.5 hours). Beyond just the time they spend having to survive, they also live well into their 70's.

It's true that more primitive peoples had a higher mortality rate and also diseases that are entirely curable now were a huge problem then, but if you survived infancy, warfare, and deadly disease (as the majority did) then you lived a long and fruitful life.

I guess that's also part of the problem. We Americans in our "modern" time live a long time, but when you consider that those last 20 years modern medicine has tacked on to our lives are likely to be spend in a nursing home alone as opposed to dying in your 70's surrounded by friends and a large extended family ... I'm not so sure we've come out ahead.

Modern medicine's main purpose seems to be to extend your life so that you will have to allocate MORE resources to modern medicine.

I've read that book too. Excellent work!

And it really does stress the overall global point too. While hunter gatherer societies in "warmish" climates live very well with the least amount of effort (the 2 hours gathering versus the long hours of early farming). Those climates also have a longer overall lifespan. A couple of main reasons include no large predators, even climate (going from hard winter to hot summer is actually pretty hard on the body) and consistent, but very limited, food types. They have a tendency to have a robust, very tightly evolved food supply. Borneo is a truly excellent example. You should see the place now in big parts of it. The introduction of species that were supposed to make them be able to grow more food actually diminished the robust but smaller food chain they had going. Their life span began to decrease as a result. Pretty amazing.

But aside from Borneo, which is, after all, an island in a very even climate, look beyond that to where we evolved from and where we initially transited. That is how far back I'm looking in terms of shelf life. We're talking looooong ago. Our "niche" so to speak, as a developing species was primarily as a scavenger gatherer, not hunter gatherer. That came later. Small animals sure, but the larger predators and game almost all evidence shows our tool marks come AFTER tooth marks. Clear indications of scavenging.

Without the modifications we very quickly brought about with our growing brains and increasingly complex technology, the general age is much lower. The closer you get to a "natural" state, the lower the age for termination is. As far as how many are found, it really isn't that far off from what we find of romans or greeks of very early times. They have isolated great clusters of remains. Clusters are important because they show a good cross section.

Anyway, this is an argument that we could enjoyably go over for years. Many people do as a profession! But while the great migration took Humans into ideal conditions for good life, and also into areas where life was exceptionally hard, it always took us someplace interesting and we always seem to adapt!

Edited to add: I can't find it in the book right now, so I'm not sure if it was in there BUT..another finding for those in really great areas for primitive living was that their ability to technologically advance was severely curtailed. They didn't have the types of adversity that spurred invention. I found that fascinating! While primitive humans that dealt with the very conditions that made their lives too close to the "natural" norm in terms of length (meaning shorter) had harder lives, it was the desire to not have hard lives and get so worn and tired that made them create new things! Like better cutting tools, better stone chipping, better shelter..etc. One of the hallmarks of the societies like the ones in Borneo is that they make VERY little change. They change or invent very slowly. Some were still using the same kind of bone tools they were using when they first came to the islands tens of thousands of years ago, despite the materials to make better. I wish I could remember if it was in that book, but it is an important point. Adversity makes us inventive.

ChristyACB · #51 03/01/10, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendle

Where did you find this info?
You don't think we've evolved to live longer?
That long ago, we were still being eaten by saber toothed tigers?

Hi Wendle. The information comes from a compilation of works spanning over a couple of hundred years! The book we referenced in a great layman's intro to the subject but keep in mind it does address the tropical climate on an island, so it is only on one area. A google search can get you access to lots of articles from various anthropological and sociological and archaeological publications. Some interesting ones out there in the last few years include some research on the Laplanders (awesome stuff and amazing people), Northern Native Americans and other cold weather groups.

As for as if we're evolving to live longer, Ernie is sort of right in his assessment though it isn't complete.

Direct evolution and peripheral evolutionary effects are very different, but the rapidity with which the effects can be seen is different with each.

As far as direct evolution, that is very slow. Hundreds and thousands of generations to get significant changes. Once you stop reproducing, any chance of passing on a good mutation ceases so, essentially, any positive evolutionary change that you may have that lets you live longer won't be seen to be beneficial. Do you see what I mean? That is direct evolution.

Peripheral evolutionary effects are those things that you may not know or can't be visibly seen or even directly noted in any way while you're reproducing but nonetheless positively effect the ability of your offspring or their offspring to live to reproduce. That would include keeping ones senses into old age, remaining vigorous longer in life and certainly living longer while still useful. That would allow you to give your children a better chance to grow up and take care of their children so they can achieve more material goods (like skins or food to store).

In that way, aging in a good way is positively selected for by default.

However, Ernie is very correct in that we have now got an opposing trend. While we are still holding pretty steady in overall longevity, we have rapidly increased in what is often called, decrepitude. The ideal is to live a long life and have an short period of rapid decrepitude and then death. We are having an opposing trend right now.

So, while everyone is enjoying having their parents live longer, those parents are far less hale than their ancestors of a hundred years ago even. That is almost entirely due to medicine. It isn't only about food or physical labor or anything because Victorian women who had the vapors for 40 years lived to 80 or 90 too and they never did a lick of work and ate atrocious things. It is about a weaker person who would have died from an illness or accident will now survive but will never be quite the same. Rinse, repeat.

So, bottom line. Yes, I think there is general agreement that the overall selection process favors longevity, but it WON'T for long if we continue to be a net detriment to our offspring and harm their chances. Then it will select for earlier death.

Luckily...it takes a really long time!

wyld thang · #52 03/01/10, 07:31 PM

For people here in the US, generally living longer(due to being "lucky" avoiding war, accident and vaccines) is also generally accompanied by worse health because of lifestyle choices that bring on degenreative disease(heart disease, diabetes, obesity, some cancers, possibly dementia, etc). Take care of yourself and stay active and you have a reasonable chance of having a well old age.

"Personal responsibility" isn't something we can factor out of the evolutionary journey for humans. We can't ignore our intelligence/self awareness/conscience in the mix--whatever you want to call it--animals don't wage organized war, charge taxes, make HFCS. This is where basing the human journey on evolution(I'm not saying evolution is neccessarily invalid tho) I'll say in a human as complicated or higher evolved animal sense(not saying a human isn't a "mammal" either) breaks down for real understanding of what it is to be human.

PS, bring THAT back to the OP question, I say yes, finding comfort in good food, a soft bed(fir boughs make a nice mattress BTW), and chocolate satiates the half-awake humans who do go "animal" when not humored. The wide awake I'd say have that deeper comfort that can never be taken away, life is a beach and then you die, and go on to something else.

(PPS, darn it, I'm not exactly expressing my thought like I want. Mostly I think it's that man *is* a moral/spiritual/thinking being(one way or another) and scientific analysis without considering this part of man(which is of course very squirmy too) only goes so far in understanding.)

manygoatsnmore · #53 03/02/10, 12:00 AM

"Adversity makes us inventive". I really like that phrase, Christy. Goes right along with the "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without" mindset, but takes it one step further. Would you mind if I tucked that one into my sig line?

ChristyACB · #54 03/02/10, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manygoatsnmore

"Adversity makes us inventive". I really like that phrase, Christy. Goes right along with the "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without" mindset, but takes it one step further. Would you mind if I tucked that one into my sig line?

Go right ahead! It will give me a grin when I see it!

sgl42 · #55 03/02/10, 03:38 AM

stumbled across this today, and thought it relevant:

Quote:

http://tinyhouseblog.com/straw-bale/a-desert-oasis/

Journey to a Small Place
By Patricia Kerns

My journey to a small place began with a simple desire for financial independence. Several years ago, having taken an early retirement from my employer, I needed to find a way to live on less than half my previous income. I had to reduce fixed expenses, especially mortgage/rent. The crazy idea that I could find some cheap land and build a house with my own two hands began to work its way into my head.

How crazy? I was a 40-something attorney whose only experience with a hammer was to hang diplomas. Being a woman, I didn’t even have a high school shop class to draw on for experience. [....]

As I developed the design, I realized that the house would have to be very small if I wanted to complete it myself. I originally considered this to be a limitation, one I was willing to accept. I imagined that my standard of living in terms of creature comforts would decline, but accepted this as a small price to pay to free myself from the burden of a mortgage. I got some excellent advice at one of the workshops I attended: record the amount of time I spent in every area of my home for a week. I was living in an 1100-sf home when I conducted this experiment. I was amazed to find that there were two rooms in my home where I rarely set foot. I realized with a shock that the primary purpose of those two rooms was to store furniture that I had only purchased so those two rooms wouldn’t be empty. This was a happy realization, since all I had to do to cut my space needs in half was to sell furniture! [....]

I erected a 16 x 16 foot army tent, built a composting toilet and solar oven, set up a solar shower and camp stove, hooked up some solar panels for power, and I was living in the lap of luxury.

It took about two months to get my foundation built and the straw bale walls up, just in time to have a place to get out of the severe winds that whipped across my land in February and March. I had no roof, no windows or doors, and no floor, but I had a comfortable place to sit and read or play my guitar while the winds howled by “outside.” I could never before have appreciated such a humble shelter. It seemed like heaven to me. [....]

I decided not to have the kitchen and bathroom in the main house, but rather to leave them for a second project. I haven’t regretted this decision, and continue to be happy cooking on a camp stove or in a solar oven, and using a camp shower and composting toilet. The climate here is quite mild, so this might not be feasible in a more northern location. I learned to live with so little during my journey here that every addition now seems like an unaccountable luxury.

The most beneficial consequence of my decision to build small became apparent as I networked with other self-builders. I was able to complete my home in the same amount of time that many people used to build larger structures, but using much less labor. This allowed me to like the home and continue to like it as I worked. I never felt overwhelmed by the process. My little casita and I have remained fast friends, and I have nothing but good memories and good energy invested in my home.

As it turns out, there was no lowering of my standard of living – not in creature comforts, not in any other way. I have learned to be greatly appreciative of every little comfort, and I enjoy what I have now far more than the four times as much that I used to have. My home and possessions serve me and shelter me, and are never a burden that require more than I am willing to give (such as a 30 year mortgage). I am well on my way to becoming sustainable on this land and a small home is part of what allowed me to see my way there. Now, when I am inside large enclosed spaces, I feel lost, disassociated and adrift. I wouldn’t trade my casita or my experience of creating it for a mansion any day.

Note: I wrote the above article five years ago. [....] I remain mortgage-free, and have no utility bills. Visitors stop by occasionally and say “gee, isn’t it HARD living like this?” I’m not sure what they mean, but I guess it’s that I have a composting toilet, cook outside and have no television. I think back to when I had all those “luxuries” in my life, and what it was costing me to sustain them. No, it isn’t hard!

more pics of the house she built at the link, for those interested.

--sgl

glazed · #56 03/02/10, 05:22 AM

Patricia (from the above article) is a personal friend of mine, and I will be staying in her domed guesthouse within the next few weeks ... I'll try to remember to take pictures of her set-up if y'all are interested.

AngieM2 · #57 03/02/10, 06:50 AM

Mama Crow - that's neat that you know Patricia, and Heck Yea - we want photos.

I love investigating the 'small houses'.

Angie

Forerunner · #58 03/02/10, 07:24 AM

Mama Crow is one of those kinds of people that just keeps coming up with surprises, no matter how long you've known her.

jessepona · #59 03/02/10, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

Wyld Thang, check out a book called "Stone Age Economics" by Marshall Sahlins.

-----

At the end you'll begin to see that the "earlier peoples died young and had nasty lives" crowd are just absolutely wrong. Even in primitive jungles like Borneo, tribesmen spend only an average of 2 hours per day supplying their basic needs (with women spending an average of 2.5 hours). Beyond just the time they spend having to survive, they also live well into their 70's.

I've read that book; it's very interesting. When I took a course on native peoples of The Great Lakes region we were taught the same thing. Colonists thought the Indians were lazy because they seemed to spend so little time working. They didn't need to work as long because their material needs were small in comparison to those of the colonists. Even the farming tribes apparently spent less than 3-4 hours a day working. The man who taught the class was a Potowotomi (sp) elder and he drew from oral traditions and archeological evidence. Interesting stuff!

Aintlifegrand · #60 03/02/10, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

I'm really curious why you take a sociological viewpoint against needless material comforts and act like you're being attacked personally. Is it the subject matter that bothers you all, or the bearer?

I'm sitting here on an upholstered chair typing this, sipping a cup of coffee, and in a heated home (not a mud hut). If you've got a splinter in your eye, I have a beam in mine. I'm less Spartan than others, however I do concede that there are many, MANY material comforts in my life which not only fail to provide me any pleasure, but actually inconvenience me as well.

I've started to notice the differences between those needless material comforts and real comfort in my own life, partly through contact with some heroic influences, and I'm encouraging others to do the same.

I attempt to "unspoil" myself all the time.. for two reasons.. one is for the eventuality of having to do without and the other is simply to remind me of the truly important things in life which I believe cannot be ascertained while sitting in the middle of luxury..Just my 2 cents...It was the main reason we lived without running water, heat and air for such long periods while building.. it would have been very easy just to get it put in..call a plumber and have it done..But the struggle of not having it easy resulted in our having to think what to do.. I almost hate to admit this but before I lived "rustic"..I could not contemplate how to brush my teeth without a bathroom sink... not to mention the many upgrades to the toilet situation..or how to wash my hair without a running shower.. laundry etc... Now I not only know how to do those things but it becomes second nature when our running water does go out as it did for a week when the parish water system pipes busted and we were without water for a week.. we never really even noticed it...we just started doing whatwe had doen for the nearly three years we lived without..