Humans are more inclined to be altruistic to their in-group, and to see their in-group as 'everyone'. Often without noticing. Burning man is, to some people, a very important ingroup, because they feel that the larger social environment has not provided them with that psychological support they need - people they identify with and share their values. Important enough to traipse from all over the world to the middle of nowhere to be a part of it.

This may or may not be actually the case - perhaps the perception of it is in part what makes the reality. It is, IMHO, what caused it's initial resonance and success; it was real at one point, for many participants.

So, it's not realistic to expect these personal needs for community to be transferable to just anywhere, unless that other community is also able to meet those needs.

I'm positing that people don't go to burning man inherently to do good - they do it for themselves, and that includes the giving and sharing, in the support of a community they identify with.

What you just described is the actual altruism.

I'm positing that people don't go to burning man inherently to do good - they do it for themselves, and that includes the giving and sharing, in the support of a community they identify with.

Let's leave out a few words to get something more universal:

"People don't inherently do good - they do things for themselves, and that includes giving and sharing in the support of a community they identify with."

I've never been to a burn but I do agree with these diagnoses about the shortcomings of our society. I also make efforts in my community to confront these problems and it is a whole lot harder to change things than just going out and partying in the desert. I have no problem with people going out and partying but I don't think people should be claiming that it is much more than just that - a party.

There are lots of things people can do in their communities. You don't have to do any of them to burn the man.

I think Burning Man participants should use their skills to build public showers for the homeless encampments along the sidewalks of San Francisco.

We can argue about what does and doesn't encompass the values of something like Burning Man, but I think that's clearly outside the spirit of the festival; and it's a festival where spirit and values are deemed important. If they wanted to get dirty, and rough it out, I don't think anyone would have a problem. It's the idea of fiefdoms forming with lords and servants, and the event turning into an expensive theme park for the rich that's so offensive.

>>can't afford to take time off work and trek across the country to go camping in the desert

if they work hard enough.

https://www.epi.org/publication/millions-of-working-people-d...

But no, the figure in your reference is paid vacation. These people ostensibly take non-paid days off.

I expect most Burning Man attendees are not getting paid to attend, and that's a strange bar to set.

Plenty of real-world reasons to be able-bodied and NOT being able to attend some desert party on a whim.

I'm arguing against the idea that "any able-bodied person" can attend Burning Man, or events like it. Lots of healthy people cannot afford to attend events like that, for multiple reasons.

What's toxic is unreflecting statements that proclaim general truths for everybody.

But let's ignore that, because the main point was that it's not that easily affordable if you just "work hard enough" - and in your cost estimation, you're conveniently forgetting the ticket fee of $425.

And not everybody can afford to quit their job in hopes they have another one when they come back. I'm glad it's worked out for you, but let's stop pretending it's this giant egalitarian thing available to all.

it's really alarming that you believe this