Living in two 160 sq ft shipping containers extolled as viro utopia

[ewv 0]

Have container, will settle: Couple homesteading in Ellsworth woods put a new twist on going off the grid

They are not the first to move to rural Maine from a more heavily populated part of the East Coast — Pennsylvania in their case — with dreams of homesteading in the woods. Nor are they the first to do so while in possession of a well-thumbed copy of “The Good Life,” the 1954 book by former Brooksville residents Helen and Scott Nearing that has served as a manual for simple, sustainable living for so many...

But there aren’t many who do so while living inside former marine shipping containers. Seip and Sansosti, both in their late 20s, have two, each about 20 feet long and eight feet wide and high, that they have modified into living units, complete with electricity and running water. They have spent much of the past year modifying the containers, ...

Full article

Website for promotion

Note the ideological commitment to a "minimalist" life style "off the grid" as a social message for some kind of utopian existence while relying extensively on advanced manufactured technology used in utterly impractical and inefficient ways -- like solar panels barely adequate for a 75 watt light bulb (when the sun is out) and peddling a stationary bicycle the equivalent of 25 miles to generate enough electricity to power a light bulb for a few hours. The supposed remote woods they "homesteaded" are on the suburban outskirts within the city of Ellsworth in southern Maine.

[Paul's Here 0]

Have container, will settle: Couple homesteading in Ellsworth woods put a new twist on going off the grid

They are not the first to move to rural Maine from a more heavily populated part of the East Coast — Pennsylvania in their case — with dreams of homesteading in the woods. Nor are they the first to do so while in possession of a well-thumbed copy of “The Good Life,” the 1954 book by former Brooksville residents Helen and Scott Nearing that has served as a manual for simple, sustainable living for so many...

But there aren’t many who do so while living inside former marine shipping containers. Seip and Sansosti, both in their late 20s, have two, each about 20 feet long and eight feet wide and high, that they have modified into living units, complete with electricity and running water. They have spent much of the past year modifying the containers, ...

Full article

Website for promotion

Note the ideological commitment to a "minimalist" life style "off the grid" as a social message for some kind of utopian existence while relying extensively on advanced manufactured technology used in utterly impractical and inefficient ways -- like solar panels barely adequate for a 75 watt light bulb (when the sun is out) and peddling a stationary bicycle the equivalent of 25 miles to generate enough electricity to power a light bulb for a few hours. The supposed remote woods they "homesteaded" are on the suburban outskirts within the city of Ellsworth in southern Maine.

“We make [our plan] up as we go along,” Sansosti said. “This is what the future looks like.”

Unthinking beings who regard themselves as beasts of burden will soon learn what living in a state of nature is really like, unless they continue to use modern technology like that car and truck outside their containers.

[Carlos 0]

Note the ideological commitment to a "minimalist" life style "off the grid" as a social message for some kind of utopian existence while relying extensively on advanced manufactured technology used in utterly impractical and inefficient ways -- like solar panels barely adequate for a 75 watt light bulb (when the sun is out) and peddling a stationary bicycle the equivalent of 25 miles to generate enough electricity to power a light bulb for a few hours. The supposed remote woods they "homesteaded" are on the suburban outskirts within the city of Ellsworth in southern Maine.

Solar panels have a brutal and currently unavoidable materials and fabrication cost. Solar-power advocate scientists working in the field of photovoltaics will say, in moments of frank honesty when addressing an audience of their peers, that a given solar panel requires 20+ years to simply break-even on the energy investment, and by that time they will probably need replacing.

Like the electric-car, it's simply inefficient technology that people are only permitted to indulge in because of their own excess finances and free time as-provided by an industrial society (and not even mentioning government subsidies artificially making the technology "feasible").

Notice the obvious irony that they are considering acquiring livestock and eventually building a community there. In some mock way they will essentially retrace the path of humans forming agrarian then industrial society, yet while smugly damning the industrial society they have left, oblivious to the fact that they are inevitably establishing a new-and-growing "footprint" on the ecosystem.

I'm expecting this to end badly for them, in a "Into the Wild" fashion. "Into the Wild" is a book written about the true story of a kid who wanted to leave evil industrial society to live in the wild like some romantic Jack London book. The kid died from his own ignorance in Alaska, from eating berries that had a bizarre toxic side effect on the gastrointestinal system. He left modern civilization to discover a life "in tune" with Mother Nature, and She slew him with contempt and indifference.

[Paul's Here 0]

I wonder how these folks would fare without those who cleared the land of wild carnivorous animals before they established such a community.

[Carlos 0]

Website for promotion

Do they realize that even a website isn't "free"? They probably don't, can't, and won't comprehend the quantity of electricity used to power the servers hosting their site 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

[Carlos 0]

I wonder how these folks would fare without those who cleared the land of wild carnivorous animals before they established such a community.

Or even simpler things. How will his pretty young spouse find the prospect of long-hours of manual labor under the sun greatly accelerating her aging?

[piz 0]

I wonder how these folks would fare without those who cleared the land of wild carnivorous animals before they established such a community.

Or even simpler things. How will his pretty young spouse find the prospect of long-hours of manual labor under the sun greatly accelerating her aging?

I'm picturing the "old woman" in Starnesville.

[ewv 0]

I'm picturing the "old woman" in Starnesville.

It looks like Starnesville: The photograph in the article looks literally like a dump.

She has been responding to comments on the article at the web page. One of them is:

Our house is super efficient and not at all primitive.

[Scott A. 0]

One of the quotes that struck me was, "'We want to be more self-reliant."

On the surface, this sounds like the right sentiment. Self-reliance is a virtue and core American principle. They are painted as living in the image of the great pioneers. It almost makes their choice understandable.

But as others have pointed out, they are exceptionally reliant others--for the structure of their home, the electricity, even the part-time jobs they have in town.

The author writes,

Seip and Sansosti designed their living units to exist off the grid.

Which he then follows with the following amazing sentences:

They installed energy-efficient LED lights, which they power off batteries, and they collect and then filter their water from the nearby stream or from a rain barrel they have on the roof. They already own electricity-producing solar panels, but are waiting to have the containers mounted on frost-proof concrete posts before they install and connect them. They also hope to erect a residential wind turbine at some point.

As if that weren't bad enough, try this:

'We’re just plugging ourselves into an already thriving community,' Seip said. 'It is so resourceful.'

Is it possible to be simultaneously "off the grid" and "plugged in"? Are self-reliance and dependence a compatible unity?

It very much seems like the strategy is to associate a virtue, i.e., self-reliance, with self-sacrifice and, ultimately, dependence. Is that not the way of altruism?

It is also, interestingly, attempting to appeal to the still-powerful idea of the pioneer spirit, which is very American. It's tying Americanism with environmentalism. So, those opposed to environmentalist theory and policy will no longer be "global-warming deniers," they will be "un-American."

I can in no way be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are after some form of fame. Perhaps they "emerge" from the woods in a couple years (maybe when they want to have a child) and write books, go on talk shows, etc. However, if they are sincere, then I certainly acknowledge their freedom to make this choice. I only hope that they acknowledge the importance of freedom as demonstrated by their choice.

[Paul's Here 0]

-------

It very much seems like the strategy is to associate a virtue, i.e., self-reliance, with self-sacrifice and, ultimately, dependence. Is that not the way of altruism?

It is also, interestingly, attempting to appeal to the still-powerful idea of the pioneer spirit, which is very American. It's tying Americanism with environmentalism. So, those opposed to environmentalist theory and policy will no longer be "global-warming deniers," they will be "un-American."

------

Magnificent observation. I think you are absolutely correct here.

[Scott A. 0]

-------

It very much seems like the strategy is to associate a virtue, i.e., self-reliance, with self-sacrifice and, ultimately, dependence. Is that not the way of altruism?

It is also, interestingly, attempting to appeal to the still-powerful idea of the pioneer spirit, which is very American. It's tying Americanism with environmentalism. So, those opposed to environmentalist theory and policy will no longer be "global-warming deniers," they will be "un-American."

------

Magnificent observation. I think you are absolutely correct here.

Thanks, Paul.

[ewv 0]

One of the quotes that struck me was, "'We want to be more self-reliant."

On the surface, this sounds like the right sentiment. Self-reliance is a virtue and core American principle. They are painted as living in the image of the great pioneers. It almost makes their choice understandable.

But as others have pointed out, they are exceptionally reliant others--for the structure of their home, the electricity, even the part-time jobs they have in town.

The author writes,

Seip and Sansosti designed their living units to exist off the grid.

Which he then follows with the following amazing sentences:

They installed energy-efficient LED lights, which they power off batteries, and they collect and then filter their water from the nearby stream or from a rain barrel they have on the roof. They already own electricity-producing solar panels, but are waiting to have the containers mounted on frost-proof concrete posts before they install and connect them. They also hope to erect a residential wind turbine at some point.

As if that weren't bad enough, try this:

'We’re just plugging ourselves into an already thriving community,' Seip said. 'It is so resourceful.'

Is it possible to be simultaneously "off the grid" and "plugged in"? Are self-reliance and dependence a compatible unity?

It very much seems like the strategy is to associate a virtue, i.e., self-reliance, with self-sacrifice and, ultimately, dependence. Is that not the way of altruism?

It is also, interestingly, attempting to appeal to the still-powerful idea of the pioneer spirit, which is very American. It's tying Americanism with environmentalism. So, those opposed to environmentalist theory and policy will no longer be "global-warming deniers," they will be "un-American."

I can in no way be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are after some form of fame. Perhaps they "emerge" from the woods in a couple years (maybe when they want to have a child) and write books, go on talk shows, etc. However, if they are sincere, then I certainly acknowledge their freedom to make this choice. I only hope that they acknowledge the importance of freedom as demonstrated by their choice.

These topics were brought up in the disqus comments on the web page. They are "off the grid" in not connecting to the electric company but are very much on a much larger "grid" of advanced technology from the whole modern industrial economy (which they use in very impractical and inefficient ways -- like pedaling a bicycle very hard for a couple of hours to generate enough power for a light bulb). They promote all this "self-reliance" in the name of self-imposed deprivation as an ideal (sounds a lot like Thoreau and Emerson).

So they think they are "independent" of the modern economy because they don't see a wire connected to a pole in front of their noses while remaining oblivious to the much larger dependence completely contradicting their imagery from the Scott and Helen Nearing 1950s back-to-the-landers book (the Nearings were also ardent communists). Apparently they are not "connected" to the outside world as long as they can't see a copper wire connection at the perceptual level.

They also depend a lot on other people's expertise to help them build their "minimalist" dumpster life. And they are doing this within the city limits of Ellsworth while imagining that they are "homesteaders" deep in the Maine woods. They exploit the imagery of the minimalist shipping containers at the same time they insist it is a "real home" and that these containers are actually mainstream, used all the time for things like college dormitories. He even said he doesn't understood why we didn't ship boatloads of empty containers to the Japanese who fled the tsunami, but of course he would not understand that. It's filled with contradictions and meaningless imagery. They like the scenic qualities of their land and confuse that emotional reaction with the rest of the "isolated deep woods" imagery.

Yes, they are publicity seekers. They sought out the reporter playing on the imagery of the shipping container, have been operating a blog for promotion, and are expecting to start a non-profit corporation.

They can't live like that for very long if they expect to have things like medical care beyond herbs by the stream, but it does seem like a setup for a book contract and movie rights to pay their way. They want to start a whole "village" of dumpster-livers in the name of anti-profit, thinking they can do this with an IRS "non-profit" status. They can't, but some lawyer who knows how to work the system will show them how to get into the non-profit grantsmanship game and the racket will be underway.

It would be like the "motivational speakers" who become wealthy by mesmerizing audiences with the "I did and so can you" line -- which could only lead to a pyramid scheme of motivational speakers living off their own downstreamers while producing nothing. Back-to-the-landers can do the same thing: they are both independent and dependent on industrial society, claiming to be self-sufficient and dependent on the non-profit dumpster village of Starnsville, earning enough money to get by through promoting others to do the same thing while producing nothing.

They aren't selling their shipping container, they are selling a philosophy of deprivation.

It's fascinating to read the comments after the article, which drew a lot of attention. It's amazing how many people missed the point even when it was explained to them, taking it for granted that their self-imposed deprivation in the name of "self-reliance" is a moral ideal even they wouldn't want to do it themselves. The informal poll on the page showed hundreds of people, by two to one, claiming they would live in a shipping container.

Some of their supporters claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that the critics were all wishing we could do the same thing, or dodging explanations with irrelevant viro rhetoric about the "web of life". The (progressive) newspaper milked it for all it was worth, but shut down comments after the issues began to become clear.

[ewv 0]

One of the quotes that struck me was, "'We want to be more self-reliant."

On the surface, this sounds like the right sentiment. Self-reliance is a virtue and core American principle. They are painted as living in the image of the great pioneers. It almost makes their choice understandable...

A big element of their "self-reliance' is seeking a union with nature and a "village" of like-minded souls (while using some forms of technology to pretend they are not relying on the modern economy).

"Self-reliance" and "individualism" have been confused since the American transcendentalists, followed by the pragmatists. "Individualism" and "self-reliance" are core slogans hijacked and disseminated by Thoreau and Emerson beginning before the Civil War, and subsequently by prominent pragmatists, including William James and Josiah Royce in the late 1800s and early 1900s at Harvard. Henry David Thoreau, the close friend and intellectual colleague of Emerson, is of course regarded as a "patron saint" by environmentalists, and pragmatism has influenced almost everything.

Leonard Peikoff has written:

The collectivist tendency of transcendentalism was often hidden by an individualist veneer, which is, however, only a veneer. (Emerson's famous doctrine of "self-reliance" demands that a man rely not on his superficial self, but on his real self, the "universal mind." "All is of God. The individual is always mistaken"—this from Emerson, the alleged champion of individualism.)

and

The first form of the Kantian invasion was the movement that dominated the course of nineteenth-century American philosophy: German metaphysical idealism...

The first wave of this American Germanism, the transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson and his circle, represents an eclectic, "literary" version of German romanticism. After the Civil War, as this version waned, similar ideas moved into the colleges, assuming scholarly form; for decades, until the turn of the century, the greatest power in our philosophy departments was Hegel.

For a history of this deveopment in much more detail, read Bruce Kuklick, The Rise of American Philosophy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1860-1930, Yale University Press, 1977, 720 pages.

Kuklic describes the New England Unitarians and how they were displaced by academic entrenchment of Germanic influences at Harvard, and how that overshadowed the earlier German-influenced but non-university New England Transcendentalists (who had been centered 20 miles west of Cambridge at Concord).

During that early period Harvard overwhelmingly dominated academic philosophy in America and was thoroughly connected with German academics. The influence of Kant and Hegel in turn thoroughly dominated the founding and development of pragmatism, of which Josiah Royce and "individualist" pragmatist William James were, as colleagues and friends at Harvard, key founders and developers of the new "American" philosophy of pragmatism. Royce was especially explicitly tied to Hegelianism and its Kantian roots, but Kantianism was prevalent in all of them. ("Pragmatic" was a technical term of Kant's.)

Kuklic describes both the biographical and philosophical evolution of Pragmatism tied together so you can see the mutual influences in terms of who was doing what where, both within America and through the connections in Germany. It is no polemical anti-pragmatism caricature: Kuklic is himself a big fan of Kant, Hegel and pragmatism and favorably emphasizes the evolution in detail. All through it is the notion of the individual self and its experiences as an aspect of or manifestation of a cosmic conscious "whole" as in Hegel.

For a history -- with less of an emphasis on the technical aspects of German philosophical idealism -- of how pragmatism has permeated and influenced almost everything in American culture see Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America, 2002, 568 pages.

Since both Kuklik and Menand are largely uncritically in favor of pragmatism, be sure to first understand what it is in its essentials and what is wrong with it, such as through Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the history of western philosophy.

[Abaco 0]

I'm expecting this to end badly for them, in a "Into the Wild" fashion. "Into the Wild" is a book written about the true story of a kid who wanted to leave evil industrial society to live in the wild like some romantic Jack London book. The kid died from his own ignorance in Alaska, from eating berries that had a bizarre toxic side effect on the gastrointestinal system. He left modern civilization to discover a life "in tune" with Mother Nature, and She slew him with contempt and indifference.

I read that book. I thought it was a good read. My own take on the story is that the kid who died snapped in his college years, probably in his senior year. (Christopher McCandless? - is that name right?)

[Carlos 0]

I'm expecting this to end badly for them, in a "Into the Wild" fashion. "Into the Wild" is a book written about the true story of a kid who wanted to leave evil industrial society to live in the wild like some romantic Jack London book. The kid died from his own ignorance in Alaska, from eating berries that had a bizarre toxic side effect on the gastrointestinal system. He left modern civilization to discover a life "in tune" with Mother Nature, and She slew him with contempt and indifference.

I read that book. I thought it was a good read. My own take on the story is that the kid who died snapped in his college years, probably in his senior year. (Christopher McCandless? - is that name right?)

It was well written (Jon Krakauer), but I personally did not enjoy it, as I couldn't separate my disgust for Christopher from enjoying the story.

It doesn't appear that anything "snapped" in Christopher, other than he was a very foolish young adult who took Jack London novels too seriously.

[Carlos 0]

(Jon Krakauer)

The parenthesis was supposed to say (Jon Krakauer can write non-fiction well).

[ewv 0]

I'm expecting this to end badly for them, in a "Into the Wild" fashion. "Into the Wild" is a book written about the true story of a kid who wanted to leave evil industrial society to live in the wild like some romantic Jack London book. The kid died from his own ignorance in Alaska, from eating berries that had a bizarre toxic side effect on the gastrointestinal system. He left modern civilization to discover a life "in tune" with Mother Nature, and She slew him with contempt and indifference.

I read that book. I thought it was a good read. My own take on the story is that the kid who died snapped in his college years, probably in his senior year. (Christopher McCandless? - is that name right?)

It was well written (Jon Krakauer), but I personally did not enjoy it, as I couldn't separate my disgust for Christopher from enjoying the story.

It doesn't appear that anything "snapped" in Christopher, other than he was a very foolish young adult who took Jack London novels too seriously.

I don't expect that to happen to this couple in Maine. Living within the city limits of Ellsworth isn't exactly the big bear country of Alaska and they seem to have the intelligence to do enough research to avoid poisonous berries. There are quite a few people in the more rural areas who aren't on the power grid, have gardens, wood stoves, sometimes pot crops, etc. and otherwise normal houses, but live quietly without the PR campaign. They aren't complete hermits and can be seen, for example, in the local grocery stores. They have lived like this for years and seem to prefer it. It beats the way some people live in the city slums.

[Steerpike 0]

I'm reminded of a badly remembered quote, "Civilization's whole purpose and advancement is to get Man as far away from the cruelty of nature as possible." It seems like we've managed it so well that some folks forget how easy it is to die in nature.

[ewv 0]

I'm reminded of a badly remembered quote, "Civilization's whole purpose and advancement is to get Man as far away from the cruelty of nature as possible." It seems like we've managed it so well that some folks forget how easy it is to die in nature.

The ideological viros make a whole religion out of forgetting (or perhaps embracing) that. They project a 'utopian' fantasy of effortless life in a Garden of Eden supplying all their basic needs if only mankind would do away with the "madness" of industrial civilization and pursuit of self-interest to live in "harmony with nature". But "somehow" they would still be able to have modern medical technology and go the store to buy what they want -- like industrially produced solar panels. The amount of thought that goes into explaining how this is possible stops where it becomes frozen at the level of emoting over scenery.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I'm expecting this to end badly for them, in a "Into the Wild" fashion. "Into the Wild" is a book written about the true story of a kid who wanted to leave evil industrial society to live in the wild like some romantic Jack London book. The kid died from his own ignorance in Alaska, from eating berries that had a bizarre toxic side effect on the gastrointestinal system. He left modern civilization to discover a life "in tune" with Mother Nature, and She slew him with contempt and indifference.

Insensate nature does not care for us one way or the other, be it for good or for ill. The burden of doing as well as we can in nature is purely on us. Fortunately we are the children of winners in the struggle for existence by way of Darwinian Evolution.

ruveyn