Interesting that he's able to do it, but as he states in the last paragraph, this isn't something everybody could do, and I think that is a good thing.<p>For the most part, it seems in the current state, Mr. Boyle is actually living off the goodwill of others while actually giving very little back to society. He has a caravan, a bike, was given a place park and is off the grid for electricty. He barters (which is as good as using money, but let's ignore that for now).<p>He talks about being happier and healthier than he had ever been before, which is important. But think about what would happen if everybody did as he does. We'd use up all our waste, which would be great, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too long before we would run out. We wouldn't have the things he relies on others giving away, like his bicycle and caravan. He's been healthier over the past year, but what about when he does get sick? He may be able to rely on the kindness of others to care for him, but what if he needs drugs or surgery?<p>What initially struck me was that he is able to live off the land, but being a non-practicing member of society, he isn't helping to take care of those who are less fortunate in other parts of the world. His taxes aren't paying for food-aid, or medical research.<p>I'm surprised how strongly I feel about this, why should I care what this guy does, but as this is being promoted as a positive thing, I'm concerned that more and more people might take up the practice, and the long-term implications for those who live in less fortunate environments.
His cure is worse than the disease.<p>If everyone did as he did we would cause MUCH more environmental damage to the world.<p>Wood fire? There is nothing worse for the environment except maybe coal, and even that (in the US) is not necessarily worse. Wood smoke is a very serious pollutant, which in quantity would blacken the sky.<p>A rocket stove is pretty good - but it doesn't come close to the efficiency of a natural gas one. So he's using a worse fuel, and being less efficient at it.<p>Beeswax candles? Is he trying to find the most wasteful and most inefficient way to light something? And candles make smoke too.
To survive without money means do many things yourself. Do many things yourself means a broad knowledge of many things. A broad knowledge of many things means that the knowledge in any particular thing is shallow and primitive, only sufficient for the basic tasks. Therefore the life becomes a continuous sequence of primitive activities.<p>Human civilization does not gain anything from it. We must specialize more and more if we want to push everything further. By numbing out our skills we won't achieve anything but unnecessary independence from others, which would only be beneficial if you were physically isolated from other people.
For people who like to know more about (almost) moneyless living:<p>- <a href="http://moneyless.info" rel="nofollow">http://moneyless.info</a><p>- This interview: <a href="http://vimeo.com/65171169" rel="nofollow">http://vimeo.com/65171169</a><p>Inspired by these things but not ready to go totally without, I'm moving to the first "live-in hackerspace", based on Lanzarote, where life is cheap and the weather is good. CyberHippieTotalism ( <a href="http://totalism.org" rel="nofollow">http://totalism.org</a> ). Feel free to come by and check it out some time!
Oh dear.<p>> my final year of a business and economics degree [ ... ] capitalism is fundamentally flawed, requiring infinite growth on a finite planet<p>I'd ask for a refund on that degree if you never learned that growth requires no resources.<p>Economic growth is simply a measure of human work and promises of future work – the former can grow indefinitely while the sun shines and the latter is entirely abstract.
His solution though admirable needs improvements. He's not living ecologically but without money which is admirable but completely ignores the effects living like our ancestors had on nature.<p>If he were more open to using modern technology he would be able to live in more balance with nature.<p>Solar panels for instance although causing harm to the environment when produced help you generate some energy which is a great return on investment by my book.<p>The key is not living like our ancestors the key is using modern technology in an attempt to live in harmony with nature. Grow your own foods make you're house as self sufficient as possible.
Everytime I read one of these stories, it's always someone without kids. This guy has an economics degree. He has the luxury of going back. If he had children, and they had to live like this, could he still do it, and would it be good for the children?(honest question) It's also always someone not in their 60s, when they start needing more medical attention, more access to medicine, etc.
money is important! I hope that when he gets sick he will not think of using traditional medicine (like the way the Chinese are killing rare animals, in the name of "medicine" amongst other funny and weird things). What he is doing is quite inspirational and admirable tho!
<i>The degrees of separation between the consumer and the consumed have increased so much that it now means we’re completely unaware of the levels of destruction and suffering embodied in the ‘stuff’ we buy.</i><p>I'm convinced this is why animal-testing and factory farming even exist, because we don't see it. Out of sight, out of mind. We see the marketing campaigns with ads of radiant beautiful people using consumer products, but the much uglier side of product research is kept from the public's view.<p>If the public could see what is happening to our animal friends, it wouldn't tolerated. We would find another way.