Anachronism or visionary?

[LeatherneckPA]

Hooo-boy! I am waxing philosophic today. Are we, who believe in self-sufficiency and simpler lifestyles, anachronisms or visionaries?

For those who don't know, Webster's defines an anachronism as a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place ; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present. I have long believed (and been told) that I should have lived somewhere between 1750 and 1900.

I already know that we are out of step with the times. But is that because the times have advanced and left us behind or is it because we have seen the future and are attempting to prepare for it?

I have always considered myself to be an anachronism. My heroes have been drawn from the likes of Tarzan of the Apes and John Carter, Warlord of Mars. I can relate to the virtues, beliefs, and morals of the heroes of Louis L'Amour (especially the Sacketts). I believe in; and try to live my life with; personal integrity, honor, duty, and respect for others. Decidedly not typical of this sad period of American history, when everyone is entitled to whatever they want. Whether they worked for it, deserve it, earned it or not.

But the argument could be made that we have seen the impending collapse of society as we sadly know it and are making efforts to ensure the survival of ourselves and those dear to us.

Personally, I see so little of today's society as desirable, I will proudly affirm that I am an anachronism. And to paraphrase Hank Williams Jr.;

This country boy will survive!!

[OzarkMtnDaredevil]

Hooo-boy! *I am waxing philosophic today. *Are we, who believe in self-sufficiency and simpler lifestyles, anachronisms or visionaries? ... I already know that we are out of step with the times. *But is that because the times have advanced and left us behind or is it because we have seen the future and are attempting to prepare for it?
Can't we be both? I think you said 'yes' somewhere in there, Leather.
It's good to meet another L'Amour reader, too!

[madmac]

I am in agreement with you on this one Leatherneck. I find your reasoning an interesting approuch. I guess I should have been born a few hundred years ago myself. I would have prefered the late 1800s myself.

[gregabob]

I'll pipe up here and agree-a little of both. Visionary, 'cause we can see where our current society is going. Anachronism-going back to what works. Self-sufficiency in varying degrees, looking at hard currency instead of fiat money, trading with neighbors more. The late 1880s were the freest time for most of us in the U.S., sadly not for the Natives tho....but the funny thing is the Lakota Nation is showing us the way back to true freedom and responsibility with their new Nation and hard currency non-fractional 100% reserve bank.- www FreeLakota Bank.com -I'm doing my part, instead of the 'modern' look, I'm going for the 'Chester A. Arthur' look (Pres. 1881-1885)-'cept no mustache 8). I've also started buying silver....... ;)

[johnjmw]

I think we will see in time they will be the same too. They say history repeats itself. By living with older values we are going to be in the beginning of the loop before too long. "IF" we get into a depression (or are we there yet) then living a simpler life and being self sufficient will be just like our forefathers. And the cycle begins again.
John

[Archangel]

If you read our history the 1890s saw a great depression. Make your theme song Texas in the 1880s
Michael

[ozarksnick]

I already know that we are out of step with the times. *But is that because the times have advanced and left us behind or is it because we have seen the future and are attempting to prepare for it?

I like your remarks, but I'd like to cast a slightly different light on them if you don't mind.

You say that we are out of step with the "times." But I believe that it is the "times" that are out of step.

One of the biggest shifts of my mindset occurred when I realized that it is not I that is being abnormal but the world.

The agrarian lifestyle (i.e.- back to the land, homesteading, self-sufficiency, etc) is the normal for the world throughout the vast majority of history.

This insane, crazy society we have created in the last century is completely and totally wrong. It is unsustainable. It cannot go on forever.

The only reason that it was able to occur in the first place was because we found a cheap energy source, oil. And that energy source has run out, we just haven't quite figured that out yet.

A friend of mine were discussing this the other day. He was confident that science would find a new energy and save the day.

I do not share his optimism. Or his high esteem of so-called science.

Alternative fuels are a joke, I read recently that it takes a gallon of ethanol to make a gallon of ethanol. Solar energy is outrageously expensive, not to mention that the plants that produce the components are run on fossil fuel.

And fuel is only a tiny fraction of the problem.

The only reason we can grow enough food to feed the current world's population is because we have artificial fertilizers that enable us to grow food where it wouldn't naturally and in bigger quantities than it would naturally. Those fertilizers come from oil. How will we feed the people of this world without oil?

Think about all the synthetics that clothe us. All originate in petroleum.

What about all the plastics used in the world today? Again, all from oil.

What happens to the tractor you're fueling with biodiesel when those plastic fuel lines wear out and fail and you can't get a replacement line?

People are so focused on the issue of fuel, that we have forgotten that just about every aspect of our modern society can be linked to oil.

So I think it really is the other way around from what you said. It is modern society that is "out of place." Those of us trying to return to the way of life God and nature intended for man are the ones who should be meting out the "step."

[GoodDaughter]

In my humble opinion, it is a bit of both. At least speaking for myself. Anachronistic because I use a lot of methods and materials that are 'old fashioned' or not commonly used by the masses anymore, but I do it out of economic necessity more than out of a desire to live like they did in the 'good old days'. Incongruities? Lots of them... I heat with wood, but have a computer/fax/printer/scanner on the desk across the room. I have a gas range top, but I make my coffee in an old fashioned stove-top percolater. I use an Aladdin lamp inside but have a compact florescent bulb in the outside porch light. Lots of incongruous mismatches in this place. I pick and choose what technology or technique is easiest to acquire and use, and cheapest to maintain, because I am limited economically. I don't like having to replace items constantly or pay a fortune to use something because it draws umpteen amps.

I also found out that I am already pretty 'green' (I cringe at that word :P) which is a visionary concept. Frugal, too, which is the newest of the old ideas to become trendy again.

Had to giggle a bit at Thanksgiving dinner at my folks yesterday. My affluent brother and SIL were complaining about how expensive everything is, and about how they would like a new coffee maker but the Krupps brand wasn't on sale right now. That conversation went off on a tangent of making coffee, how everyone did it during the hurricane's power outages, and how it was done back when Mom was a kid, and how it smelled so good and how they wish they could find a good stovetop percolator because it sure would be nice to not have to keep buying new Krupps machines every couple of years but how they didn't know where to buy a stove top percolator... At the first lull in the conversation, I said I found a really nice stainless steel one at the resale shop for $2 a few years ago, and I use that. "Really", SIL says, completely disinterested now because I had said the 'r' word (resale) and only really poor people go to places like that. I bet if I'd told her Macy's has them for $79.99 she'd have been stopping on the way home (snark).

Getting back to the original question---I think the other guys have excellent points. What is old, is new again. Low tech methods and machinery are often less expensive initally and over the long term.

[LeatherneckPA]

Can't we be both? I think you said 'yes' somewhere in there, Leather.
It's good to meet another L'Amour reader, too!

I suspect it is indeed both, but I didn't want to color anyone else's answer.

[LeatherneckPA]

I'm doing my part, instead of the 'modern' look, I'm going for the 'Chester A. Arthur' look (Pres. 1881-1885)-'cept no mustache 8). I've also started buying silver....... ;)
LOL, I'm doing the George Armstrong Custer look myself. DW HATES the long hair.

[gregabob]

LOL, I'm doing the George Armstrong Custer look myself. *DW HATES the long hair.
LOL! I was mocked by my citified BMW drivin' brother on Thanksgiving for my 'look'! 'Course he's lost his hair due to stress........... ::)

[pcrowder]

Gooddaughter - your life sounds almost identical to mine, from the percolator to heating with, and if someone took away my computer I'd just DIE!!!!!!! :o But, I butchered two of my turkeys for Thanksgiving, I can anything that will stay still long enough for me to shove it into a jar, I heat with wood a good part of the time, but I also hav a LP kitchen stove. I wash dishes by hand since the dishwasher quit (I really don't miss it much), and have both an old wring washer (needs engine work) and a modern super capacity top loading washer which does the family laundry. I think it is possible to do both, and good to know how to do it both ways. Alot of people wouldn't know what to do if their power was off for more than 12 hours or if there was an extended blizzard and their food supply was disrupted. I prefer to do alot of things the old fashioned way, but alot of times, for convenience/time sake/my screaming arthritis' sake, I use the modern conveniences. I'd say virtually all of the people on this forum are both. It maybe a contradiction (like the Amish - no electricity, but they have cell phones), but I think that is what our society has adapted to.