Karel on Nostr: There are also some downsides to the nomadic hippie life. For example, this morning ...
There are also some downsides to the nomadic hippie life. For example, this morning we had a long discussion about whether to buy two tickets for our very, very favorite band Sigur Rós, who will be playing in Prague next year. Should we not make an exception out of sentimentality? Shouldn't we treat ourselves to something nice once in a while? When we said it like that, our eyes glazed over with temptation, but... sometimes things are not what they seem to be (this is not a "look how poor we are" begging post, read on till the end :) )
After all, we calculated that the 2 tickets would cost us 1/3 of our monthly expenses (for the whole family, including 2 children and a dog). Which means that the choice is suddenly very different. Either we spend this money for 3 hours of beautiful music we love, or we will be able to afford more than 10 days of effortless living somewhere in Turkey or Greece (where we are going this year).
After all the counting we found out that it is not really a downside for us. Because if you imagine that during these 10 days we will probably make 2 campfires full of beautiful music from hippies (lasting much longer than 3 hours), we will swim in the sea, we will have a nice time with children, we will meet new people, we will eat 10 lunches, 10 dinners and 10 breakfasts, and (if you look at it in a strictly chemical way) we will probably stimulate our dopamine and serotonin much more (yes, in smaller doses, but spread in a larger amount of nice little moments), suddenly the choice is without questions.
So yes, there are downsides to the nomadic life. Yes, we cannot afford music concerts, cinema, theater, restaurants etc. But the question is if you really consider it a downside after all. On the one hand, we will never be able to afford to see one of our favorite bands, but on the other hand, we are voluntarily (!) trading that for something we value more. And if you do this conscious counting of your values, it can never be considered a drawback. The only thing is that everyone might get different results (because values are always subjective) and some results are generally considered by society as "poor/bad" while some results as "rich/good", but in the end the only thing that matters is what you consider it to be, not what society does. And that goes both ways, our counting also is not the "right one", because it simply might not work for you. For you the result might be "better work hard 340 days a year and be able to afford any concert I want" and if you choose this voluntarily, it is awesome and we are happy for you. And even if you decide to go to the beautiful concert and we do not, neither of us is loosing. None of us is limited in our options. We both just make conscious choices based on our different values and everything is just the way it should be :).
So is it a downside after all? It cannot be by definition. If we really wanted to go to concerts more than what we have now, we always could sell our campervan, create a company (in other words exchange our time for money) and make as much money as we want. But we do not. Because our counting has different values in it.
You always need to do your own counting, because nobody can decide this for you. You yourself are the biggest expert on your life values and you can never delegate this activity to anybody else. Because nobody else knows all your needs, all your history, and all your context like you do. And until we invent some magical technology, nobody will ever be able to. Not your psychologist, not your parents, not your favorite youtuber, not us, not even the smartest person on the planet, no one will ever have as much information about yourself as you do to make the right calculations about life decisions. And when you realize this, when you turn off all the noise of "what should be right according to society, friends, parents, or anyone else who isn't you," you can never be poor as a result, because every one of your quid pro quo deals will ultimately be profitable. No matter if it outwardly look quite the opposite in the eyes of others.
TLDR: Is nomadic life limiting? Everything is limiting. You always trade something for something. You just have to choose what you value more.
After all, we calculated that the 2 tickets would cost us 1/3 of our monthly expenses (for the whole family, including 2 children and a dog). Which means that the choice is suddenly very different. Either we spend this money for 3 hours of beautiful music we love, or we will be able to afford more than 10 days of effortless living somewhere in Turkey or Greece (where we are going this year).
After all the counting we found out that it is not really a downside for us. Because if you imagine that during these 10 days we will probably make 2 campfires full of beautiful music from hippies (lasting much longer than 3 hours), we will swim in the sea, we will have a nice time with children, we will meet new people, we will eat 10 lunches, 10 dinners and 10 breakfasts, and (if you look at it in a strictly chemical way) we will probably stimulate our dopamine and serotonin much more (yes, in smaller doses, but spread in a larger amount of nice little moments), suddenly the choice is without questions.
So yes, there are downsides to the nomadic life. Yes, we cannot afford music concerts, cinema, theater, restaurants etc. But the question is if you really consider it a downside after all. On the one hand, we will never be able to afford to see one of our favorite bands, but on the other hand, we are voluntarily (!) trading that for something we value more. And if you do this conscious counting of your values, it can never be considered a drawback. The only thing is that everyone might get different results (because values are always subjective) and some results are generally considered by society as "poor/bad" while some results as "rich/good", but in the end the only thing that matters is what you consider it to be, not what society does. And that goes both ways, our counting also is not the "right one", because it simply might not work for you. For you the result might be "better work hard 340 days a year and be able to afford any concert I want" and if you choose this voluntarily, it is awesome and we are happy for you. And even if you decide to go to the beautiful concert and we do not, neither of us is loosing. None of us is limited in our options. We both just make conscious choices based on our different values and everything is just the way it should be :).
So is it a downside after all? It cannot be by definition. If we really wanted to go to concerts more than what we have now, we always could sell our campervan, create a company (in other words exchange our time for money) and make as much money as we want. But we do not. Because our counting has different values in it.
You always need to do your own counting, because nobody can decide this for you. You yourself are the biggest expert on your life values and you can never delegate this activity to anybody else. Because nobody else knows all your needs, all your history, and all your context like you do. And until we invent some magical technology, nobody will ever be able to. Not your psychologist, not your parents, not your favorite youtuber, not us, not even the smartest person on the planet, no one will ever have as much information about yourself as you do to make the right calculations about life decisions. And when you realize this, when you turn off all the noise of "what should be right according to society, friends, parents, or anyone else who isn't you," you can never be poor as a result, because every one of your quid pro quo deals will ultimately be profitable. No matter if it outwardly look quite the opposite in the eyes of others.
TLDR: Is nomadic life limiting? Everything is limiting. You always trade something for something. You just have to choose what you value more.