> It strikes me how his entire day is filled and spend providing for his basic needs. If he doesn’t get up in the morning he will freeze to death for lack of heat during the winter.
Meanwhile I have a friend who doesn't work, lives at home, never leaves the house, watches Twitch/YouTube + scrolls Twitter all day.
Two different people living completely opposite worlds, and interestingly enough both of them probably think the other has it wrong and they have it right.
How can something as massive as "entire lifestyle choice" be so open for wildly varying interpretations?
Twitch/YouTube is as lonesome as the wild Siberian forest. Both have found situations that flood them with repeatable stimuli that makes them feel good.
I don't think that is why. An all day digital person is the same as any other all day digital person. Nothing unique or interesting happens to them. They may even be watching the exact same content. If you have seen one all day digital person, you have seen them all.
People who have to work everyday to survive are going to have an experience that others who also have to work everyday won't have. Their lives are filled with unique experiences including life and death situations which can be thrilling stories. If you have seen one of these people, all you have seen is one of them.
Not if everyone has to work to survive - they'll all have similar types of "Life and death" experiences. Not to mention the psychological trauma that comes with those types of experiences, people who think "that which does not kill me only makes me stronger" have never suffered a heart attack.
It's this weird henry Thoreau transcendental nonsense from people who have never actually had to rough it.
I am not suggesting that everybody should have to work every day to survive. I don't think that would be good. I am also not suggesting that having life and death situations are good. If that is what you thought I was saying then you are reading into my post more than you should.
All I am saying is that people who just stare at a screen all day, do not make for interesting stories. People whose situation could easily lead to their death have far more interesting stories. I don't want to live like the man in the video, but his story was absolutely engrossing.
How many books have you read where the main character sleeps, eats, goes to the bathroom, stares at a screen and nothing else? Compare that with stories where people get out, risk life and limb to accomplish something.
Somebody watching videos and changing views on politics or culture or whatever isn't an interesting event. They are literally just mindlessly sitting and staring all day. Do you think you could make a 15 minute video about a day in the life of a person who does nothing all day and actually have it be engrossing?
To people who have never used a computer before? Absolutely, there would be a ton to talk about!
That’s about the same familiarity-level as all of us have with the lifestyle of the lone cabin survivalist.
I’ve gone backpacking and hiking for multi-day trips and it’s really enjoyable, but there aren’t usually tons of stories after the first few times. Sometimes we’ll see new animals or something but it’s not thrilling. It may be different every time but it starts to rhyme.
You are on a site that talks all day about boxes which are literally just mindlessly sitting and not even staring. I am sure people are intrigued if somebody makes a video which offers access to the mind of the mindlessly sitting persons.
Btw, engrossing videos about mindlessly staring persons, that's very close to a mirror.
I'm not sure if the forest-dweller's autobiography is that interesting. 20 years of ~9 months of "Today I went out to chop wood. I made lunch, fed the dogs, and in the evening I went to the lake to get water." and 3 months where it's not winter...
Meanwhile I have a friend who doesn't work, lives at home, never leaves the house, watches Twitch/YouTube + scrolls Twitter all day.
Two different people living completely opposite worlds, and interestingly enough both of them probably think the other has it wrong and they have it right.
How can something as massive as "entire lifestyle choice" be so open for wildly varying interpretations?