Good article about living at a remote estancia at the bottom of Argentina, January 1971, 'The Housewife at the End of the World'. Not too much has changed since then.
Take a 2 week long vacation deep somewhere doing just this, you will appreciate it but more than likely come to realize it is not something you would prefer long term. If you can find a middle ground, to me that’s the dream.
Are you open to the other tasks this life requires or are you just looking for western comfort but in a place far from whatever you have now?
Living out here means dealing with real problems because there is no infrastructure. You need to know how to survive if that solar panels break and you need 2 weeks to get a new ones. What happens if the food delivery couldn't make it for one extra week because the one guy who flies that out is sick. Can you handle illness without medicine or a doctor for a few days. etc..
The people shown in this article live very differently then the starlink solar van campers who work in tech and glamp out in the Sierra Nevda on Saturday night.
I think a lot of people want the feeling of being in that sort of space without any of the hard parts. I personally would settle for being a few miles from the nearest person (maybe ten), a well-fenced-off property with a safe well, a good electric fence around it all, some weapons to protect myself, a couple of dogs, a handful of kittens, a place to store food, a good connection to the net (not starlink; I would settle for something a bit slower and terrestrial), some farm animals which procreate reasonably fast, and a decent diesel truck.
Please don't romanticize isolation. We have enough elderly folk existing in dire loneliness in assisted-living facilities and nursing homes who understand the true definition of it.
as is often pointed out, loneliness and solitude are two different things. The latter, especially in nature, can be a very formative and restorative experience.
People aren't allowed to enjoy something because other people don't enjoy it? Other people are experiencing something they didn't choose, so nobody should be allowed to choose it?
Whoever can enjoy what ever. There is some danger in romanticize things. Romanticizing shows the good in something but leaves out the difficulties. Some may very well enjoy an extremely remote and isolated lifestyle but it is not a Disney cruise of Hollywood movie.
People who try to become vegetarians because they think they should rarely last. You need to want to. (context: vegetarian for 40 years, apart from the occasional bit of white fish).
Hmm. I think you sorta need to feel "you should" before you "want to", for most people. I have gone through periods of veganism, lacto-vegetarianism, ovo-lacto vegetarianism, ovo-lacto-pescatarian (and with and without poultry), etc. At the end of the day, my body was not built to be vegetarian in any capacity. It stops working properly without red meat, even (even when I try to supplement iron in other ways, my body literally does not function properly). I can go without chicken, but not other animal sources. It's a shame; I sort of didn't mind the food if it was prepared properly, but it is dangerous to suggest everyone can follow the same diet.
Incredible photos. First thing that came to my mind was an awareness of the contrast between "the full breadth of humanity experience" vs "Silicon Valley's view of humanity". I don't know if that makes sense, but it's literally the first thing that came to my mind.
Patagonia as it’s referred to today was never unpopulated, it still has an indigenous population. This narrative is used everywhere for vast untamed wilderness that just ignores the many people still living there.
I'm certainly willing to be corrected, but as far as I can tell from some brief searching, indigenous populations that exist in the region today aren't living some nomadic life out in the wilderness either. They're living in cities and towns like almost everyone else does.
So a post like this is still correct in how it's presented.
Almost no one is actually living out at "the end of the world" in the wilderness with few or no other people around, and it is potentially a topic of interest/curiosity to hear about those who do.
https://archive.org/details/edg-ng-1961/edg%20NG%201971-01%2...
Living out here means dealing with real problems because there is no infrastructure. You need to know how to survive if that solar panels break and you need 2 weeks to get a new ones. What happens if the food delivery couldn't make it for one extra week because the one guy who flies that out is sick. Can you handle illness without medicine or a doctor for a few days. etc..
The people shown in this article live very differently then the starlink solar van campers who work in tech and glamp out in the Sierra Nevda on Saturday night.
You can "isolate" in less isolated places.
Also what's the point if the activity you're describing is linking through other people anyway (just over internet).
Anyway, isolation and solitude seem lovely until you get appendicitis.
(/s though from the title did consider for a second that it meant a retail store in some isolated place)
So a post like this is still correct in how it's presented.
Almost no one is actually living out at "the end of the world" in the wilderness with few or no other people around, and it is potentially a topic of interest/curiosity to hear about those who do.