99% of people in the UK would take years of their life for the opportunity (even in other cities in the UK). Not for happiness, for the fast cars, nothing like that...to eat, to not worry, to have children, to live somewhere safe. Again, being in the race is a privilege, most people aren't racing, there is no sport...they are getting run over.
With an investment into some technologies, you could live fairly nice. Dropping everything with no investment and just living off the land is a fairytale dream.
I love being in the wilderness. I love the quiet, the beauty of nature, the fresh air, the opportunity to stretch my legs and challenge my body.
And I love the city. I love good food and municipal garbage collection and plowed roads and the company of friends and family within easy reach.
I've often thought about buying a property closer to the Canadian Rockies (I'm close, but not as closed as I'd like), and then I remember that I'd have to maintain my own septic system, and invest in equipment to clear my own roads, and, and, and... and then I realize maybe my life ain't so bad after all. :)
The lesson I think to learn is to be true to yourself and try and be objective when assessing life. I grew up in extremely rural, a very nature heavy childhood and there are parts of it I believe are fantastic. Meanwhile as I grew older, I found there were things denser populated urban centers could offer me. Every now and then I look back nostalically about how simple life was but there were a lot of tradeoffs in that context I wouldn't just get rid of now.
For me the compromise is to find a moderately densely populated area with access to densely populated resources. I have most all the access to nature quiet and sanity where I live, meanwhile within a 15 minute drive I can do most everything one has access to in say LA or NYC as far as things I care about and am interested in.
As with many things in life, I don't think the extremes are where happiness tends to lie, it's some compromise or mixture in between.
Yes: historically, the presence of tons of people on "the wild" periphery to grow and sell them their food, so they can live off of them...
The wild without that? It’s wild.
A more balanced approach is to move to the country-side and work remote. Many people do that. But I guess that wouldn’t be too novel to get Twitter and social media attention.
Imagine breaking a leg on a massive property, no roads to where you are, no cell service. What do you do? If you want to live, you crawl. If you’re strong enough, have enough will, and are lucky — you make it. Else, the coyotes eat you. Hell they might eat you anyway.
Addendum: just last week I was surrounded by the local pack of wild dogs. They were hungry and I saw one circle behind me. I drew my sidearm and yelled and they ran off. The point being, I had no help. None. If they were hungry enough, it would be me or them.
You should always carry a gun as well.
I was mostly trying to paint the picture most people don’t think about. When you’re off a common trail, no one’s there to help you
the author kept it brief by relying on cliche after cliche, telling us to make sure we watched a completely cliche video. Why do people who have a critique of society think that they're the only ones who ever thought of this stuff?
can't get enough of it? here, enjoy https://youtu.be/n-sQSp5jbSQ?t=28
Where did you get that from?
I do my adventures without medical insurance, looking up nearby clinics, and there is no embassy to turn to and no emergency contact. I try to be careful, but if there was an accident I’d accept this is the end of the journey.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive. One can think of wild places as paradise while taking the necessary precautionary measures to survive there. I've camped next to a lake with hippos in it that passed a few meters from me as they strode past at sunset. A cape buffalo has done the same thing. I know what these creatures are, I know to anticipate disaster. And yet these places are still the closest thing to paradise I've ever known.
When I wrote this, I had no idea it was going to receive so much attention. It was immediately after a call with my boss where I committed to leaving.
I have learned a valuable lesson: how important it is to be crystal clear with the words you choose and the message you convey.
Reading my post now, I agree it sounds like I'm naively planning on going to live in the mountains where I'll immediately die in a storm or get eaten by a bear. I also wrote "I'm the least fulfilled I've ever been". I should have written "this is the least fulfilling work I've ever done".
I am leaving an unfulfilling job, and an unfulfilling place, to move to a smaller settlement where I am a short walk from the seaside and a short drive from the mountains. I'll have a way higher quality of life, being able to do the things I love (hiking in the mountains and other general outdoor pursuits) at the cost of losing a significant amount of income.
This is a trade I'm willing to make, and it reverses the decisions I've made over the last few years. This is an important learning I hoped to share with others who may be in a similar predicament.
I don't have FU money, I still want to work as a software engineer and will have to very soon. The difference is that I will not trade quality of life for money, and I will try to find or create work on the terms that maximise happiness for me. These terms are different for everybody, so my solution is unique to me.
The TL;DR of my original post is "don't optimise for income over quality of life".
> The TL;DR of my original post is "don't optimise for income over quality of life".
On this, we can 100% agree!
In LA, I have the luxury of clean water, medicine, sewage, a decent cocktail, and, like OP, make a decent living. It's easy to decry modern society because you're not "happy" but, imo, that says more about you than it does about what you do.
Don't think the mountains, or the oceans, or the deserts are an idyllic virginal untouched Eden. You're going to end up getting yourself killed like the Into the Wild guy.