U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: I would rather...
Live in civilization 8 50.00%
Live in the wilderness 6 37.50%
Undecided 2 12.50%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 10-22-2010, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Des Allemands, Louisiana
32 posts, read 81,359 times
Reputation: 28

Advertisements

So lets say you have a choice of living in civilization with all the conveniences or living in some remote location in the wilderness like in Montana or Idaho living of the land. What would you rather do?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:01 PM
 
7,279 posts, read 13,538,196 times
Reputation: 3610
You do, of course, realize that we'd have to be into having SOME of the conveniences of "civilization" or we wouldn't be able to vote on this INTERNET poll...

I think your crunchiest of mountain-dwellers aren't exactly surfing the ol' web...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,296,789 times
Reputation: 3827
Most Americans would die within a month if forced to live off the land without any of the amenities of civilization.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:22 PM
 
Location: S.W.PA
1,361 posts, read 2,511,058 times
Reputation: 1040
Do you really mean "wilderness"? Or do you mean "country". There are relatively few areas that would qualify as wilderness- some National Parks, parts of our western states, maybe northern Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, much of Alaska of course- but even these places have roads.
I assumed you meant "remote" or "rural" and I have chosen that- though its not an easy choice for me. There are big positives and negatives to both in my view. If you'll allow me contact with a handful of intelligent people, access to stores, a library, electricity, I will have about all I personally need. But I want to be near my family, and they won't come along , so this is completely academic!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:32 PM
 
Location: S.W.PA
1,361 posts, read 2,511,058 times
Reputation: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Most Americans would die within a month if forced to live off the land without any of the amenities of civilization.
I agree. I reread the post and I think he/she means "wilderness" quite literally. That would be an interesting adventure for a summer, but by winter I would want to be back in civilization!
Reminds me of a book: "A Year in the Maine Woods", and that movie from 3 or 4 years ago: "Into the Wild" . These should be mandatory for anyone considering such a thing.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,296,789 times
Reputation: 3827
Unclean water ===> diarrhea ===> dehydration ===> death. Without medical intervention (a nice benefit of civilization) it's fairly rapid.

Not to mention, starvation, hypothermia, etc. How many modern Americans can start a fire without a match, lighter, or other modern assistance?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Des Allemands, Louisiana
32 posts, read 81,359 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo6 View Post
Do you really mean "wilderness"? Or do you mean "country". There are relatively few areas that would qualify as wilderness- some National Parks, parts of our western states, maybe northern Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, much of Alaska of course- but even these places have roads.
I assumed you meant "remote" or "rural" and I have chosen that- though its not an easy choice for me. There are big positives and negatives to both in my view. If you'll allow me contact with a handful of intelligent people, access to stores, a library, electricity, I will have about all I personally need. But I want to be near my family, and they won't come along , so this is completely academic!

I mean wilderness...like in a national forest.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 02:26 PM
 
Location: S.W.PA
1,361 posts, read 2,511,058 times
Reputation: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Unclean water ===> diarrhea ===> dehydration ===> death. Without medical intervention (a nice benefit of civilization) it's fairly rapid.

Not to mention, starvation, hypothermia, etc. How many modern Americans can start a fire without a match, lighter, or other modern assistance?
Well one would need a lot of supplies like matches, water purifiers, a rifle plus ammo, etc. I think its plausible until you hit the big freeze. Then it would be really tough to find enough calories out there to cover the energy it would take to collect those calories.
I think the "man in the wilderness" idea can work, but "man alone in the wilderness" is a really bad idea. I think its under severe conditions such as what we are talking about that one will discover that we are really social animals. We need other people not only emotionally, but also for practical reasons like taking care of us when we are sick etc. As you noted- getting sick out there could mean death.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 12:49 AM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,988,108 times
Reputation: 6688
I might like "the wilderness" with modern convenience. Like a nice estate in the middle-of-nowhere with my own doctor on the premises. Or even just a nice house with conveniences up in the hills, but not too far from a good hospital. (I'm a pretty healthy person, but I do have a medical condition)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 01:33 AM
 
551 posts, read 997,852 times
Reputation: 455
I'd like to live in the wilderness with no one around. However, living off the land would be hard. It is unfortunate we are not Gods who can live without needing other people to help us, and I think farming by yourself in Idaho or Montana or some other remote place would be hard. Living in the "wilderness" has its perks, and I think having more freedom would be one of them. If you have a house in the middle of the wilderness, you can be able to do more of what you want unlike in a big city where if you do one thing, lots of people can be affected by it unintentionally and thus there are so many laws to stop you from doing it. I can see why Americans love living in the wilderness because they don't want to be subject to nanny state laws if you live in the pinnacle of civilization like a city type enviornment. I would certainly think one reason why I would like having a house in the wilderness is having more freedom because since you have a lot of space for yourself, you can do more activities that people would feel offended or annoyed by in a more dense civilization space.

Last edited by JKFire108; 10-23-2010 at 01:47 AM..
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top