But it's not just about economic benefit. Most people don't work to afford toys for themselves, they work to support others. At the end of the article, this guy expresses sadness that he's estranged from his two children as a result of his choices, but then attempts to justify it by saying he's not going to let having children keep him from making a better world for his children - a world in which there is no money. I would think his kids would probably prefer having a father who was present for them than one who couldn't see them because he'd deluded himself into thinking that a complete lack of effort was his way of saving the world.

If you can't take part in your children's lives as a result of your choice not to take part in the economy, then you're sort of failing at both moral standards aren't you?

> If you can’t take part in your children’s lives…

That’s a question without an objective answer. For example some people are better off in the foster system. It’s an oversimplification to assume some kind of standard life for other life choices.

But by the guy's own standard, the most important thing for him is to make the world better for his children. Even at the cost of actually knowing his children. Subjectively or objectively they may be better off with him not in their lives, but I fail to see how that bolsters his moral argument for how society should work.

What moral standpoint does Disneyland represent? You've far from proved the net harm of Disneyland, but what has that got to do with homelessness in BC?

> It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior

sure, but this is a straw-man. The proposition isn't that participating in the economy is automatically of greater value, it's that not participating (other than to leech off it) produces non.

> directly counters their morality argument

It's possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.

> What moral standpoint does Disneyland represent?

The GP listed doing anything productive as a moral stance, Disneyland is therefore part of that anything.

> net harm of Disneyland

Promoting millions to take longer trips and regularly visit the middle of Florida directly causes travel related pollution. Simply developing that land is harmful to the local ecosystems. Producing all the merchandising is similarly an issue.

> It’s possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.

If you oppose Disneyland for environmental reasons you’re hard pressed to then support the most of the rest of the economy. I would welcome an argument that draws a line there without excluding say suburbs.

> anything productive as a moral stance

If Disneyland is harmful, it isn't productive

> rest of the economy

which this guy is also dependent on

> Of Disneyland is harmful, it isn’t productive.

Any activity that burns fossil fuels directly produces measurable harm. Feel free to think about what that means for all current economic activity.

So does any activity that produces CO2, including natural forest fires, and breathing.

The whole idea that CO2 is harmful, came from modern scientific knowledge - also part and product of the economy/society. The same economy could come up with solutions e.g. carbon taxes or other tech advances.

You are taking a complex issue, CO2, the economy and its planetary effects, and turning it into a simplified concept of "harm". Humans have consumed some amount of CO2 forever, it's only an issue now because there are significantly more humans (who also create more CO2, but that's beside the point of the first).

In order to survive in growing numbers, humanity will need to manage its CO2. Incidentally this isn't the first time something like this has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

Nothing about this the hobo lifestyle suggests it will produce a solution to this problem beyond the fact that it's unlikely to support communities of a certain size for other reasons.