[doctor_eval]

I find this to be a really ungenerous take.

Nobody is claiming that they live in a non-industrial society. They clearly live on a fibreglass sailing vessel and use electronic navigation aides. The "narrative", as you put it, is simply to use less, to "double your capacity by halving your consumption", to live life in a humble and sustainable way, and to do as much as you can with what you already have.

I found the entire website to have a dreamy and non-judgemental approach to everything, and I envy their lifestyle. They are just doing what they do, and documenting it so that others can learn with them, and maybe to encourage us to aspire to do a little better with our lives.

Maybe you could avoid judging them, in return?

[rgrieselhuber]

I'm always mystified by the animosity I see toward anything resembling decentralization on HN, despite the fact that it is a forum populated by Computer Scientists who are very well aware of the benefits of decentralization when it comes to computer systems.

[alar44]

I think it's a bit of a paradox. If everyone lived like that, no one would be able to live like that.

"All I need is a battery, a solar panel, copper wiring encased in plastic, a mining company to dig the ore out, a chemical refinery to help refine the ore, an oil rig, a team to run it, a chemistry lab to make the plastic, a small town to create this portable computer for me..."

[doctor_eval]

There's no paradox, because nobody is being directed to live "like that". It's a story of some people's life that some of us find interesting, not a manifesto, nor a demand that others like they do.

[mediocregopher]

> I think it's a bit of a paradox. If everyone lived like that, no one would be able to live like that.

Is it unthinkable for someone to leave their humble dwelling, with few amenities, and head down to a factory where these amenities are built? Just because we don't use a particular technology at home doesn't mean we can't do so in a factory.

Put another way, there's very little about most people's home lifestyle which directly begets a microprocessor, and yet microprocessors are still made.

[alar44]

Microprocessors are made because people collectively contribute to "the grid". The ability to live off "the grid" is made possible by "the grid" itself. Unless you are building tools from raw materials. Going out and buying a bunch of modern technology made by the grid to live off of it is kind of ironic. Fine by me but I get parent's point. There's something a bit privileged about it.

[ryandrake]

I agree with you and OP. Are you really going “off grid” if, to do so, you are reliant on all these things only made on the grid? I mean, even the Amish are not “off grid” if you look at their supply chain. I’m not going to be the guy who gatekeeps the phrase, but it is definitely ironic the way people use it.

[an_ko]

What counts as "truly" off grid to you? Start nude with a rock? Even primitive people were born into a world with pre-existing humans who have some form of technology. It's not electricity, but there is a "grid" of some form.

[aspenmayer]

An independent water source such as a well or spring. A source of food such as arable land. A shelter of some kind.

I think the modern era has complicated the issue in many people’s minds, by making high tech stuff like solar lighting and internet seem like necessities. They aren’t if you decide they aren’t. Folks just want to appear more devout or disciplined or extreme than they are for cultural cachet. I don’t really get it, but I guess if you are wealthy, then you may desire to avoid consumption for any number of reasons, and offgrid living is a kind of restrained conspicuous consumption.

Having grown up off the grid in a one room cabin without running water or even electricity at the beginning, I think it’s a lot less romantic if you’re poor, and especially so without the amenities of modern living. To me, a lot of this feels like a flex, like #vanlife vs being homeless and living out of your car, or glamping vs sleeping rough. But I digress.

And the internet is part of the grid, not that the distinction means as much these days, with reliable WISPs and Starlink being viable. I think offgrid living jives more with DIY and community projects and less with corporate turnkey monetized solutions.

That’s the distinction I think is important here. Some folks want to be offgrid because of the freedom it gives them and their community. Some folks just do it for themselves and their egos.

[doctor_eval]

But you are gatekeeping the phrase, to the point of taking the term so literally that it becomes devoid of meaning.

To me, “off grid” simply means being entirely self reliant for all aspects of your well-being, for a period of time.

Bobbing around in a tiny plastic boat in the middle of the enormous Pacific Ocean with literally no possibility of connection to any other human is just about as off grid as you can get on this Earth.

Just because they reconnect to the grid occasionally to top up and download, doesn’t invalidate this. The truth remains that they are “on-grid” far less than most of us.

[jefurii]

So these people are trying to do some good, and your criticism of them is that they're not perfect? Tell me how much good are you doing?

It's not possible to live completely off the grid. Is that a reason not to try at all?

[alar44]

Perfect? Perfectly what? How much good am I doing?

I don't know that you're talking about, sorry.

[kortilla]

Is it sustainable to give everyone a boat and all of that stuff though? Is this really any different from a walk through of a big off grid estate with rain collection, batteries, solar, chickens, grains, etc?

Just because there is a nice closed loop on day to day resource usage, it doesn’t make something sustainable nor something to strive for to help with climate change.