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.
Actually, I would go farther and say that universities are little more than state and federal revenue machines these days (or private revenue machines as the case may be).
You are defending your lifestyle. There is no need, because I'm not attacking it. We are just on two different paths. Besides, you are not the "pretend culture" that I'm talking about anyway. You are actually wealthy (I'm assuming from correspondence with you over the years here). You are not a fresh-out-of-college guy, in debt up to his eyeballs, who assumes that that is all it takes to become Harry Sinclair, and driving a fancy car, living in a fancy house, living the "high life," etc, none of which he can afford. So now he's heavily in debt and crying at an "occupy" rally somewhere because the world owes him a Harry Sinclair lifestyle. I know you are not one of those people. I respect your lifestyle choices and achievements. But, by the same token, they are not my aspirations. They are yours.
Just for the record, though, it takes more than sheer intelligence and education to aspire to the lifestyle you have chosen. It also takes desire to do so. That's what I lack. I just don't want it. It has nothing to do with lack of brainpower or laziness. I don't want to toot my horn, but just so you know what I say here is true: I'm certainly not lazy. I can match most anyone my age both physically and mentally. My IQ is measured at around 140. I have degrees (both graduating with honors) in Mathematics and English/Writing. I lack a semester's worth of classes in having a graduate degree in structural engineering. Yet... right around that last semester I figured out that "performing" in the corporate world was not for me. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It's simply that some folks have a different path in store for them for whatever reason. Had I finished that degree, I would have spent the rest of my life in what I personally consider to be a wasteful state (for me, and me alone). Life is too short to "make it" in our modern system simply because that's what everyone else aspires to, at least if your heart is not in it. If a pursuit in life means nothing to me, I cannot seek it, regardless of ability.
But alas, we are straying--perhaps some of that will help others understand where I'm coming from and what motivates me. Maybe it will help others sort out their motivations. As far as college, I never went there in order to secure employment upon graduation. I went there because I was ravenous for knowledge; I always have been and always will be. I cannot satiate that hunger by performing in the corporate world. I can, however, in part by performing the myriad of tasks required in that self-sufficient lifestyle, which of course is more skill development than academic. But hey, there will be time for more intellectual endeavors: I can do some differential geometry, or read Nathaniel Hawthorne, Washington Irving, or Charles Brockden Brown by coal oil lamp in my off-hours, like when it's -10 below outside on a dead-of-winter night--after I bring the wood in for the night, of course.
We need enginers who are interested in Humanities as well. But we have few. I wish people like you were teaching. Most of your students would ignore your liberal education and just want what makes money but you'd find a few who would understand and benefit.
Even US presidents can be erudite. Herbert Hoover translated De re metallica from Latin. It was the first work of metallurgy presented in a rational manner (no Philosopher's Stone) although it was not completely original.
I do not consider money as the only goal. For me it's secondary because its only purpose is to allow me to enjoy an intellectually stimulating life. I own five or six thousand books. They weren't free. But I'm glad I own them rather than have the money I used to buy them.
I enjoy the authors you mention. They're good storytellers and they write about fascinating times. I like reading about those times too. But I wouldn't want to live in them; I don't need to have a patroon giving me orders. I do like the old times but I can appreciate them better in a book; I don't care for smelling raw sewage (yes you could) along with the romance.
Last edited by Happy in Wyoming; 06-19-2012 at 08:32 PM..
I own five or six thousand books. They weren't free. But I'm glad I own them rather than have the money I used to buy them.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I probably don't have that many but my husband swears that I do. The first room to finish in our farmhouse is the library.
I own five or six thousand books. They weren't free. But I'm glad I own them rather than have the money I used to buy them.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I probably don't have that many but my husband swears that I do. The first room to finish in our farmhouse is the library.
Or you can just buy a Kindle and use the room for something else. I sold hundreds of my books through Amazon and used the money to buy a Kindle and buy back the books I really wanted to keep in electronic form . Save trees and all, ya know
- I went to Amazon and looked up this Bunker guy, and apparently, they either love him or hate him. To me, that means he's probably pretty good to read, as he makes people think and feel things (which they might like, or not).
- The Kindle thing is off my list. I stare at a screen way too much as it is, and it does affect your eyesight. So if I buy one of Bunker's books, it will be the real book, not the Kindle edition.
- I once had 4-5,000 books also, packed carefully in cartons that I ordered custom-made from a company that well, makes cartons. Good and sturdy. When we last moved, to our present house, I stashed all the cartons in a metal shop on the property (looks like an old Quonset hut). The roof leaked, and the books mostly got mildewed, so I had to dump most of them. Since then, I've re-bought the more important ones again, plus others that I didn't have. No more custom cartons, though.
- Whoever it was who opined that college nowadays is mostly a financial scam and/or a "status" thing that everybody knows young folks need, is correct, IMHO. I can speak with some experience, as I have an M.S. and put both our daughters through grad school. That was 20-25 years ago, and while it was a bit different back then than it is today, I still feel the whole thing is a rip-off. My conclusion is: you're either bright or not-too-bright (I'm being polite here), and if you're bright, you can absorb the book-learnin' on your own. If you're stupid (note to self: most people in college and grad school), it isn't going to increase your IQ at all, just put you into a whole lot of debt, which is pretty stupid, isn't it?
- Lastly, if I can get pretty much the same message from the Nearings' books, why read it in someone else's book? Helen and Scott were fine, as long as you ignored their socialism (and for me, their vegetarianism). They not only philosphized about a simpler life, they led it and called it "The Good Life". They were not preachers. Scott was a PhD social scientist and Helen was a talented violinist -- but they never let any of that get in the way of living simply and cheaply. And that's what it's all about, if you ask me!
Some thoughts:
- The Kindle thing is off my list. I stare at a screen way too much as it is, and it does affect your eyesight. So if I buy one of Bunker's books, it will be the real book, not the Kindle edition.
- I once had 4-5,000 books also, packed carefully in cartons that I ordered custom-made from a company that well, makes cartons. Good and sturdy. When we last moved, to our present house, I stashed all the cartons in a metal shop on the property (looks like an old Quonset hut). The roof leaked, and the books mostly got mildewed, so I had to dump most of them. Since then, I've re-bought the more important ones again, plus others that I didn't have. No more custom cartons, though
The Kindle screen is deceptively similar to a real book, it is quite amazing. When we last moved I was laughing since all my books were on it and all I had to do is pack it into my backpack together with its charger. Nice thing about it is that you can use a portable solar charger (like the ones that unfold) and keep it charged. Once charged it will last you a long time (a few weeks to a month!).
Sounds like a good theory but that is all it is - a theory. A very romantic theory.
Your author doesn't fully practice this. I wonder why. I haven't read the book so I don't know his excuses. He is self-employed same as I am, however, he also holds fundraisers and accepts donations. You ask that his religion be separated from it but can it be completely? Isn't he using it to appeal to the emotions of others which in turn aids him in funding his dream lifestyle?
The human animal tends to take the path of least resistance just like any other animal.
The human animal tends to want to improve quality of life, wants to be more efficient. Regressing to a harder life of lesser quality when it isn't necessary probably doesn't sound very enticing to most people, and perhaps not intelligent. However, for those who want to, who cares. I find it amusing that there are as you say, heated discussions over this.
I think most people don't want to do hard physical labor 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, to eek out an existence. It might look romantic but it isn't.
Aren't you the one who said you are going to buy a 10 year supply of food before moving to your self-sufficient dream home?
The human animal also seeks comfort. Isn't that why you still use electricity? Isn't that also why you said you were seeking a climate in which you would feel comfortable, seemingly without regard to exactly how you would achieve self-sufficiency or how conducive the climate is to that?
Why stop at 130 years ago? Why not use stone age tools? Isn't it because 130 year old tools are more efficient than stone age tools, and make life more comfortable therefore improving the quality of life?
I do understand why you look back with fondness but reading about it and participating in historical reenactments, or even going out to cut a field of wheat, will not prepare you for the reality of that day-to-day lifestyle. Of course the difference between then and now is that you have the knowledge of a more convenient and comfortable lifestyle which you could opt to go back to.
Sounds like a good theory but that is all it is - a theory. A very romantic theory.
Your author doesn't fully practice this. I wonder why. I haven't read the book so I don't know his excuses. He is self-employed same as I am, however, he also holds fundraisers and accepts donations. You ask that his religion be separated from it but can it be completely? Isn't he using it to appeal to the emotions of others which in turn aids him in funding his dream lifestyle?
The human animal tends to take the path of least resistance just like any other animal.
The human animal tends to want to improve quality of life, wants to be more efficient. Regressing to a harder life of lesser quality when it isn't necessary probably doesn't sound very enticing to most people, and perhaps not intelligent. However, for those who want to, who cares. I find it amusing that there are as you say, heated discussions over this.
I think most people don't want to do hard physical labor 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, to eek out an existence. It might look romantic but it isn't.
Aren't you the one who said you are going to buy a 10 year supply of food before moving to your self-sufficient dream home?
The human animal also seeks comfort. Isn't that why you still use electricity? Isn't that also why you said you were seeking a climate in which you would feel comfortable, seemingly without regard to exactly how you would achieve self-sufficiency or how conducive the climate is to that?
Why stop at 130 years ago? Why not use stone age tools? Isn't it because 130 year old tools are more efficient than stone age tools, and make life more comfortable therefore improving the quality of life?
I do understand why you look back with fondness but reading about it and participating in historical reenactments, or even going out to cut a field of wheat, will not prepare you for the reality of that day-to-day lifestyle. Of course the difference between then and now is that you have the knowledge of a more convenient and comfortable lifestyle which you could opt to go back to.
Yes, I could opt to go back to convenience and comfort. I'm here now. I can always come back. And yes, I do have, and certainly will have a supply of food. It doesn't matter what lifestyle you are living, that's always been a good idea. It was common back then for a reason. The same reason on the "macro" as it is today... one's food source can potentially be interrupted. The grocery store could run dry just the same as a garden or field of wheat can fail to yield a harvest. So having a stash of food is not really counter to seeking a more simple and/or "traditional" lifestyle.
I'm certainly aware that it is virtually impossible for me to adopt a 100% 19th century lifestyle. But what I can do is choose some of the major aspects and work on them. Then choose another aspect to add. Then another. So forth. One of the biggies for me is forgoing electricity and modern-style heating. That's really not a huge deal, because plenty of folks do it. Now, if we are talking about cars (for instance), yeah, I'd love to use a horse and buggy. Perhaps I will someday, but it's not realistic right now. All of these hundreds of aspects, just as with Mr. Bunker, do not have to be done immediately upon starting the journey. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
And of course, there are certain aspects I will likely never completely forgo. I'm a writer and musician, and some of my income comes from that. For certain aspects of those activities, I will need minimal access to electricity and communications. But the plan is to not use electricity at all for daily life chores. I don't plan to have the house wired. I don't plan to even have a telephone. You mentioned my reference to my "dream house." That has never changed for me: a timber-frame cabin of around 350 sq ft including a knee-walled one-and-a-half story sleeping loft, hand-built by me. A hearth for cooking in addition to a wood stove. Possibly a masonry heater rather than a wood stove. Outhouse rather than bathroom (if I can find a county that is not dictatorial on the matter). A root cellar. Basement food storage. Somewhere between 4 and 20 acres (depending on region of the US). So on. Those are the first baby steps going in the direction I want to go.
But again, it doesn't have to all be done at once. That is one thing Bunker emphasized right up front. He also predicted your response and took your points one by one. He is simply in a long transition. However, looking at where he is right now, it's obvious he is closer to his ideal than I am. So, it gives me an example of which I can nod in approval and have hope that it is possible for me as well.
I actually spoke the other day to a man who lives in a rural area of Utah that has taken several steps in same direction--and he even has a wife and a couple of kids. He said he'd had enough of living beyond his means and one day sold nearly everything he had, bought an old farm with a house that hadn't been lived in for many, many years. He fixed it up and the family moved there. He does still have his job and a car. So far, this is not out of the ordinary--lot's of folks have done this. BUT, here's where the story got interesting to me: he hasn't had electricity in the 3 years he has lived there (the home was never wired in the first place) and heats with two fireplaces--one on each end of the home. They cook on a wood stove. They have no phone, no computer or computer games for the kids, and very little of the things that are common to us. They do listen to the radio when they travel in their car; that's the only media they are exposed to. They also garden and do small-scale farming as the family has time. So, there are folks doing similar sorts of things out there. It's not as if I'm alone in my interest.
I still say it's not as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be (especially the sans electricity thing). I think it could be a big deal for some folks for sure. I think lifestyle before the transition is a huge factor. It depends heavily on how far one is "plugged into" our modern society. If one is thoroughly "plugged in" then it's going to be harder to unplug. It's also heavily dependent on personality and disposition--psychology again!
Oh, to answer your question about why 130 years: my personal reason is that, in my eyes, that is about when we started taking technology too far. That's when it hit a "sweet spot" and after, began going down the wrong path. Remember, that's just my opinion. It doesn't have to mean anything to anyone else. It's just where life was simple enough for my tastes, yet advanced enough for my tastes. It's also a time that I think the common citizen in the United States had something (freedom and opportunity of sorts) that no one has ever had before or since. Again, my opinion--there is no time that has or ever will be perfect. Someone gets the shaft no matter where you land in history. It's just that some people just belong in a certain time. I'm convinced that's where I would have been best suited. I feel a bit "displaced" in time--but that's another story. Bottom line is, when you are strongly drawn to something, you are just drawn to it. Sometimes there is no reason. It just is what it is.
Yes, I could opt to go back to convenience and comfort. I'm here now. I can always come back. And yes, I do have, and certainly will have a supply of food. It doesn't matter what lifestyle you are living, that's always been a good idea. It was common back then for a reason. The same reason on the "macro" as it is today... one's food source can potentially be interrupted. The grocery store could run dry just the same as a garden or field of wheat can fail to yield a harvest. So having a stash of food is not really counter to seeking a more simple and/or "traditional" lifestyle.
130 years ago, nobody had, or could have, a 10 year food supply.
So you are OK with taking advantage of some advanced knowledge and technology. You are only diametrically opposed to the bits that you personally don't want to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I'm certainly aware that it is virtually impossible for me to adopt a 100% 19th century lifestyle. But what I can do is choose some of the major aspects and work on them. Then choose another aspect to add. Then another. So forth. One of the biggies for me is forgoing electricity and modern-style heating. That's really not a huge deal, because plenty of folks do it. Now, if we are talking about cars (for instance), yeah, I'd love to use a horse and buggy. Perhaps I will someday, but it's not realistic right now. All of these hundreds of aspects, just as with Mr. Bunker, do not have to be done immediately upon starting the journey. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
You seem to be constructing many conditions which must be met in order for you to assume self-sufficient living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
And of course, there are certain aspects I will likely never completely forgo. I'm a writer and musician, and some of my income comes from that. For certain aspects of those activities, I will need minimal access to electricity and communications. But the plan is to not use electricity at all for daily life chores. I don't plan to have the house wired. I don't plan to even have a telephone. You mentioned my reference to my "dream house." That has never changed for me: a timber-frame cabin of around 350 sq ft including a knee-walled one-and-a-half story sleeping loft, hand-built by me. A hearth for cooking in addition to a wood stove. Possibly a masonry heater rather than a wood stove. Outhouse rather than bathroom (if I can find a county that is not dictatorial on the matter). A root cellar. Basement food storage. Somewhere between 4 and 20 acres (depending on region of the US). So on. Those are the first baby steps going in the direction I want to go.
Again, you are picking and choosing which advancements may be included under the definition of self-sufficient living. However, you are diametrically opposed to others choosing certain advancements to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
But again, it doesn't have to all be done at once. That is one thing Bunker emphasized right up front. He also predicted your response and took your points one by one. He is simply in a long transition. However, looking at where he is right now, it's obvious he is closer to his ideal than I am. So, it gives me an example of which I can nod in approval and have hope that it is possible for me as well.
No, it doesn't have to be done all at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I actually spoke the other day to a man who lives in a rural area of Utah that has taken several steps in same direction--and he even has a wife and a couple of kids. He said he'd had enough of living beyond his means and one day sold nearly everything he had, bought an old farm with a house that hadn't been lived in for many, many years. He fixed it up and the family moved there. He does still have his job and a car. So far, this is not out of the ordinary--lot's of folks have done this. BUT, here's where the story got interesting to me: he hasn't had electricity in the 3 years he has lived there (the home was never wired in the first place) and heats with two fireplaces--one on each end of the home. They cook on a wood stove. They have no phone, no computer or computer games for the kids, and very little of the things that are common to us. They do listen to the radio when they travel in their car; that's the only media they are exposed to. They also garden and do small-scale farming as the family has time. So, there are folks doing similar sorts of things out there. It's not as if I'm alone in my interest.
If he was living beyond his means, it could be that he didn't have a choice but to assume this new lifestyle.
No, you are not alone. I don't think anyone has suggested that you are. It seems you are the only one who may have thought you were alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I still say it's not as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be (especially the sans electricity thing). I think it could be a big deal for some folks for sure. I think lifestyle before the transition is a huge factor. It depends heavily on how far one is "plugged into" our modern society. If one is thoroughly "plugged in" then it's going to be harder to unplug. It's also heavily dependent on personality and disposition--psychology again!
What I am saying is that theories on self-sufficiency mean nothing. And that it doesn't matter if someone else out there agrees with me/us or not. It shouldn't matter to you if anyone agrees with you, IMO.
I would bet that most regulars on this forum don't require validation from strangers for their chosen lifestyles, or from anyone else for that matter. I've been on this forum for 2 years and it seems all you have done is talked about it. Once you get out there and do it, you may find you have to adjust your ideal.
Let's say for example you find yourself in a situation in which using a chainsaw would be the smartest and most efficient method of resolving a problem. It's an urgent problem, but harvesting and processing your food also requires your urgent attention. Will you dismiss the smartest way to handle it because you are diametrically opposed to chainsaws?
I don't understand why you think you are diametrically opposed to what SCGranny was saying. Once you dive into it (maybe you have already, but it doesn't appear to be so), you may find that it's smarter to compromise on your ideals.
In fact you are already compromising because it's the smarter thing to do - such as your requirement for "minimal access to electricity and communications", purchasing and storing a 10 year food supply, etc. Can you explain how this is diametrically opposed to what SCGranny said - because at this point it looks more like hypocrisy in believing that you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Oh, to answer your question about why 130 years: my personal reason is that, in my eyes, that is about when we started taking technology too far. That's when it hit a "sweet spot" and after, began going down the wrong path. Remember, that's just my opinion. It doesn't have to mean anything to anyone else. It's just where life was simple enough for my tastes, yet advanced enough for my tastes. It's also a time that I think the common citizen in the United States had something (freedom and opportunity of sorts) that no one has ever had before or since. Again, my opinion--there is no time that has or ever will be perfect. Someone gets the shaft no matter where you land in history. It's just that some people just belong in a certain time. I'm convinced that's where I would have been best suited. I feel a bit "displaced" in time--but that's another story. Bottom line is, when you are strongly drawn to something, you are just drawn to it. Sometimes there is no reason. It just is what it is.
I know exactly what it means to feel displaced in time. I'm there with you. Somewhere in this thread you said that you would like to see a self-sufficiency forum dedicated more closely to your ideals. I have suggested this before for this forum but you were one of the naysayers. I'm rather puzzled by that.
130 years ago, nobody had, or could have, a 10 year food supply.
So you are OK with taking advantage of some advanced knowledge and technology. You are only diametrically opposed to the bits that you personally don't want to use.
.....
Whoa... stop... hold the phone... I'm not diametrically opposed to any way of life in a universal sense. I'm simply choosing a path that is my ideal. Unfortunately, what works for me tends to be frowned upon by the "sufficiency crowd" in general, save a few so called tin foil hat types or fanatics. But, like you said, it shouldn't matter. I doesn't really; it would just be nice to connect with some like-minded folks who might also be drawn in this direction. But again, I'm not diametrically opposed universally (meaning I don't expect everyone else to think and do as I do. What's right for me is not necessarily right for everyone. By the same token, what's right for others may not be right for me).
What I said (or meant) is that we had diametrically opposed ideals of what self-sufficiency means to us (philosophically). Meaning things like, I don't mind spending two hours chopping wood when I could have done it in five with a chainsaw. I don't mind walking somewhere for an hour when I could have driven it in five minutes. And so on. I, in fact, prefer these things that require me to slow my pace of life. Folks are just way to fast for me these days. But, no, I certainly don't expect others to feel the same about any of this stuff.
I freely admit that I've blown a head gasket a few times on this forum when someone goes on and on and on about (for example), "how can I have air-conditioning or a freezer in my survival shelter without grid power." Then the thread goes on and on with all kinds of Rube Goldberg-like ways of making it work. I simply roll my eyes. To me, the answer is simplicity. And I know I shouldn't even comment... but sometimes I can't resist saying, "have you considered keeping it simple and learning to do without." I should keep my mouth shut. But, by the same token, it is a viable option. But that "doing without" way doesn't appeal to everyone, just a few of us.
Sounds like a good theory but that is all it is - a theory. A very romantic theory.
Your author doesn't fully practice this. I wonder why. I haven't read the book so I don't know his excuses. He is self-employed same as I am, however, he also holds fundraisers and accepts donations. You ask that his religion be separated from it but can it be completely? Isn't he using it to appeal to the emotions of others which in turn aids him in funding his dream lifestyle?
The human animal tends to take the path of least resistance just like any other animal.
The human animal tends to want to improve quality of life, wants to be more efficient. Regressing to a harder life of lesser quality when it isn't necessary probably doesn't sound very enticing to most people, and perhaps not intelligent. However, for those who want to, who cares. I find it amusing that there are as you say, heated discussions over this.
I think most people don't want to do hard physical labor 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, to eek out an existence. It might look romantic but it isn't.
Aren't you the one who said you are going to buy a 10 year supply of food before moving to your self-sufficient dream home?
The human animal also seeks comfort. Isn't that why you still use electricity? Isn't that also why you said you were seeking a climate in which you would feel comfortable, seemingly without regard to exactly how you would achieve self-sufficiency or how conducive the climate is to that?
Why stop at 130 years ago? Why not use stone age tools? Isn't it because 130 year old tools are more efficient than stone age tools, and make life more comfortable therefore improving the quality of life?
I do understand why you look back with fondness but reading about it and participating in historical reenactments, or even going out to cut a field of wheat, will not prepare you for the reality of that day-to-day lifestyle. Of course the difference between then and now is that you have the knowledge of a more convenient and comfortable lifestyle which you could opt to go back to.
People stop at whatever they are most familiar and suits them. Maybe the majority of people are seeking comforts and to be as lazy as possible (hey, this is not universal to people, I agree with you!) but some do not. Manual labor can be fulfilling and can be good for you. Nobody ever died from hard work or labor . My wife and I just cut down a bunch of cedar trees and branches on a 5 acre tract and used our horses to haul the trees/branches to a pile. We cut everything down manually, no chainsaw. I will then manually strip the portions of the trees and branches that can be used as boards or posts. However, I want to turn the rest into mulch chips and for that the best tool will be a rental chipper.
Since it is my property and my self-sufficiency, I get to choose how I do stuff, whatever gets the job done
You may ask why I did not rent a chainsaw but I will rent a chipper and my philosophy is - whatever I can get done in reasonable time and effort, I will do manually BUT for me to chip the piles we have manually would take weeks and I "don't got weeks to spare" since we are building a barn, starting raised bed gardens etc.
OD
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 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.
I'm not diametrically opposed to any way of life in a universal sense. I'm simply choosing a path that is my ideal. Unfortunately, what works for me tends to be frowned upon by the "sufficiency crowd" in general, save a few so called tin foil hat types or fanatics. But, like you said, it shouldn't matter. I doesn't really; it would just be nice to connect with some like-minded folks who might also be drawn in this direction. But again, I'm not diametrically opposed universally (meaning I don't expect everyone else to think and do as I do. What's right for me is not necessarily right for everyone. By the same token, what's right for others may not be right for me). 
since we are building a barn, starting raised bed gardens etc.
