A Simple Life is NOT More enjoyable
Thoreau criticizes society’s advancement, and claims that humanity would be better off living a simple life style in the woods. Thoreau gives the impression that people do not enjoy their lives by making claims that, “He has no time to be anything but a machine,” and, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” While life may be hard at times, I would much rather live as I do now than in a shack in the woods! He says it’s so great owning your own house, not having to buy food, and having plenty of leisure time. I would agree with this if it was a nice house and good food, but that’s not what Thoreau had in mind.
His house was a shack in the woods. I don’t know about you, but I think that students are happy to be back in their dorm rooms and not have to spend the rest of the semester in K-ville. The shack in the woods would actually be less accommodating than a tent in K-ville, because at least you have easy access to food, where you do not in the woods. I would much rather sleep in a warm, climate controlled room, in a soft comfortable bed, instead of sleeping in a freezing cabin in a makeshift bed. You spend one-third of your life in bed, you better make it worth it. He says that people don’t enjoy life, but I’m sure that I enjoy sleeping in my dorm room much more than he did in a freezing shack.
I agree that it is possible to survive off of growing your own crops, but that really wouldn’t be enjoying life either. He lived off of corn, potatoes, peas, and turnips, that does not sound like an appetizing menu at all, especially if that the only thing you eat every single day. What if I want fruit, some pineapple, coconut, strawberries, and mango? What if I want a big juicy steak, or pasta, or anything else in world besides corn, potatoes, peas, and turnips? He has none of that, all of which are things that I enjoy. It seems that living simply is taking away things I enjoy in life instead of making me enjoy life more.
Another point he makes is that he could travel to any place in less time than another person and he would enjoy the trip more because he would get to experience the scenery better. In his example, he states that he could walk thirty miles in a day and arrive a new location, and would enjoy his trip because he got to experience many things along the way. He contrasts this against a person who would work the entire time Thoreau was walking in order to make enough money to pay for a trip that would take him the thirty miles, and the man would not enjoy the trip as much because he would be confined to a car or train. I agree with this, but what if the trip was longer than thirty miles, what if the trip was to Europe, Australia, or Brazil? This would take him years to get there and he would not be able to walk there either. I think I would be able to make enough money to but a plane ticket to any of these places, in a much shorter time than it would take him to get there.
He never mentions that he got sick, but what if he did? He would have no medicine to help him recover, and might even perish from a disease that modern medicine has a cure for. Increased life expectancy and better nutrition have come with advances in technology. In third world countries that are not very modernized disease is the cause of strife and hardship for the people who live there. Therefore, effective medicines that cure these diseases and help to alleviate the discomforts associated with them make life more enjoyable. The Black Death or Bubonic Plague killed millions; now medicine and technology has advanced beyond that, and found cures so that people do not have to suffer like that anymore.
I think that despite hectic schedules, bills, long work hours, and stress, our life style today is worth it, and so are all the advancements we’ve made as a result of all the work. The internet, electricity, cars, planes, phones, television, climate controlled houses, diverse food selection, and many other luxuries all make life more enjoyable.
His house was a shack in the woods. I don’t know about you, but I think that students are happy to be back in their dorm rooms and not have to spend the rest of the semester in K-ville. The shack in the woods would actually be less accommodating than a tent in K-ville, because at least you have easy access to food, where you do not in the woods. I would much rather sleep in a warm, climate controlled room, in a soft comfortable bed, instead of sleeping in a freezing cabin in a makeshift bed. You spend one-third of your life in bed, you better make it worth it. He says that people don’t enjoy life, but I’m sure that I enjoy sleeping in my dorm room much more than he did in a freezing shack.
I agree that it is possible to survive off of growing your own crops, but that really wouldn’t be enjoying life either. He lived off of corn, potatoes, peas, and turnips, that does not sound like an appetizing menu at all, especially if that the only thing you eat every single day. What if I want fruit, some pineapple, coconut, strawberries, and mango? What if I want a big juicy steak, or pasta, or anything else in world besides corn, potatoes, peas, and turnips? He has none of that, all of which are things that I enjoy. It seems that living simply is taking away things I enjoy in life instead of making me enjoy life more.
Another point he makes is that he could travel to any place in less time than another person and he would enjoy the trip more because he would get to experience the scenery better. In his example, he states that he could walk thirty miles in a day and arrive a new location, and would enjoy his trip because he got to experience many things along the way. He contrasts this against a person who would work the entire time Thoreau was walking in order to make enough money to pay for a trip that would take him the thirty miles, and the man would not enjoy the trip as much because he would be confined to a car or train. I agree with this, but what if the trip was longer than thirty miles, what if the trip was to Europe, Australia, or Brazil? This would take him years to get there and he would not be able to walk there either. I think I would be able to make enough money to but a plane ticket to any of these places, in a much shorter time than it would take him to get there.
He never mentions that he got sick, but what if he did? He would have no medicine to help him recover, and might even perish from a disease that modern medicine has a cure for. Increased life expectancy and better nutrition have come with advances in technology. In third world countries that are not very modernized disease is the cause of strife and hardship for the people who live there. Therefore, effective medicines that cure these diseases and help to alleviate the discomforts associated with them make life more enjoyable. The Black Death or Bubonic Plague killed millions; now medicine and technology has advanced beyond that, and found cures so that people do not have to suffer like that anymore.
I think that despite hectic schedules, bills, long work hours, and stress, our life style today is worth it, and so are all the advancements we’ve made as a result of all the work. The internet, electricity, cars, planes, phones, television, climate controlled houses, diverse food selection, and many other luxuries all make life more enjoyable.
posted by Chris Rowland at 4:45 PM
2 Comments:
I completely agree that I wouldn’t want to live the way that Thoreau recommends. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder if the reason that we feel this way is because living it the woods is unusual. In your post you say that you would not like to be eating "corn, potatoes, peas, and turnips" everyday. But what if that was what you were used to? If you had never eaten pasta or pineapple or whatever, you wouldn't miss it. In fact if you had never had these foods and had always lived off the land, you may not even like exotic foods like coconut and mango. All I am saying is that I don't really think that it is possible to determine in which life style brings people more happiness. Happiness is not measurable. I think that it depends more on a person's up bringing and what thing they are used to.
In her comment, Ami sort of brings up the "ignorance is bliss" conundrum. Would you rather be happily unaware of a 'better' lifestyle, or know that it exists and then toil to attain it? Thoreau lamented over the condition of man, of his near dehumanization as he streched himself to achieve a materialistic cultural ideal of success. Such knowledge, pressed on these men (Thoreau doesn't really mention women, does he) since birth, can be likened to that enlightened state that questions the actual happiness of those in the know.
I agree with Ami in that happiness cannot be determined by any one indicator; so many things(chemical, cultural, environmental) factor into an individual's percieved well-being.
Post a Comment
<< Home