They have diesel that the haul on the boat for the generator, run sparingly, and gas, also hauled in by boat, and no electric. The plane drops a bundle once a month in the winter time. There are a lot of folks doing the same thing there, and in other places, so it is not as uncommon as one might think.

Here in NW coastal Oregon, we often times go 3-4 days without electric in the winter, stretching to 8 days without 2 winters ago. Cell phones were out for 10 days, and only local landline calls could be made for 10 days. With a wood stove, for heat, hot water, and cooking, all I worried about was the freezer. It was cozy, and the family all gathered at my house cuz they knew Mom (me) would have a great stew going on the woodstove Since then I have been trying to can more and freeze less to prevent a major loss of meat.

But to get back to the topic at hand, it probably is best for all of us to make some attempt at incorporating some of the principals of “living off the grid” within the context of modern life. Few of us have the willingness or ability to go back to a pure live-off-the-land existence but there are components that are desireable, such as detaching ourselves from the media and the popculture to a large degree, spending more time with family and friends, perhaps homeschooling our kids and in general emphasizing self-reliance. We don’t need to live in the wilderness to do any of these things, but maybe we can make some effort to incorporate the best of both worlds into our own.

What I said was that 3 miles then was about 500 now.

I actually didn’t come up with this by myself.

In a study of distances traveled by populations in various eras, most medieval peasants traveled no further than 3 miles from their homes, on average, in their entire lives. They were walking on foot, laden with provisions for their journey, not on good roads – most were the equivalent of goat paths. Modern roads and accompanying infrastructure are more uncommon throughout history than one would think. See also Zvi Razi’s Medieval society and the manor court.

For example, I used to live 1.75 miles (about 2.5k) up a dirt road. No problem, right? Except that walking home after the bus dropped us off was nearly impossible because there were two hills to go over, and 2 knee-deep creeks to cross, and about a tenth of a mile where you traveled through the creek bed. The creeks were commonly used for travel because at least they were relatively flat, and free of vegetation. You might read Follow The River by James Alexander Thom for more details about this.

Barring major moves or travel, most modern, middle-class Americans will travel no further than 1000 miles in a day (500 miles there and 500 miles back), because that’s the average distance you can travel in a day in a car. And we are a sedentary, car loving nation.

I’m not sure I agree with you on the equivalence of distance in the modern era. I don’t believe 3 miles is such a big deal in the kind of terrain that covers most of the USA. It’s a comfortable distance to run for exercise, and it’s shorter than a one-way trip to the grocery store for me, and the route is about half paved and half dirt. This is not the Rocky Mountains or the Grand Canyon.

I do all my grocery shopping on foot, and I go at least once a week for dairy, kitty litter, and such. The dirt part is easier on my knees compared to pavement especially if I’m carrying a load. But I still seldom break a sweat doing it, and I’m one of those out-of-shape overweight people!

Comparing my weekly stroll to the grocery store (which requires an investment of maybe two hours if I dawdle in the store), to a 500 mile car trek, which at an average speed of 75 miles per hour would take 6 hours 40 minutes and require full alertness to avoid a car accident, just doesn’t seem realistic to me.

It’s a comment on our society that you do have to seemingly go to extremes to not “succumb” to consumerism, peer influence, etc. in your daily life. Personally, I think families pay a price for this extreme of “off the grid.” I’d seriously like to see real scientific studies on how it affects their kids ability to socialize, interact, etc. not just anecdotal speculation.

I’ve known plenty of folks who live a very “simple” life and don’t watch tv, limit their kids “indoor” computer/video game time and do not let their kids dictate expensive purchases (But mom, we HAVE to have…fill in the blank, be it designer sneakers or expensive toys.) They also don’t allow their kids to join every sport, engage in every activity. It’s very selective. Family time (Which is NOT the time spent in cars, shutteling kids around to one activity or another) is a priority. This works well for some, not so well for others.

As their kids grow and socialize more and more, it is tougher and tougher because the kids see the difference in how they are living versus their friends. This often causes a lot of friction because kids for the most part want to be like their friends. And kids today are ruthless in judging others who do not act, think like them. it’s not easy being your own person as a teenager.

Even the most firmly convinced of their ideals parents have huge difficulties with teenagers who can’t enjoy, even to a limited extent, the lifestyles of their friends, and this applies to all socio-economic levels, not just the rich or well off.

Simplicity is a concept you learn, some earlier, some later, some not at all. When it’s imposed on you, it can be really problematic (as in when one partner wants it and one does not…)

I think it does take a village to connect and integrate humans into the world around them. Yea, the whole socializing and socialization bit can get out of hand and cause some grief, but in the world, you really need to understand how people “work” and act with each other. Otherwise, you are at a disadvantage in how you interact with others.

I also think living off the grid is probably far more difficult if there is only one child versus a few, who can play and learn from each other.

But, good or bad, parents have to do what they believe is right. I just hope they make thoughtful choices that take into account the downsides, as those are also a part of the decision for an “alternate” lifestyle.

Squeaky, the reason that Laura Ingalls Wilder is so remarkable is her literacy. Illiteracy rates before the turn of the 20th century were fairly high. Yes, families were large, but they were also combined into close multigenerational multifamily units, much like the Amish today.

Remember, distances were different in those days – 3 miles (the typical there-and-back-in-a-day walking distance) is equivalent to about 500 miles today, because that’s the typical day’s drive in an automobile.

Socialization requirements were different as well. Introverts were much more valued–the “strong, silent type” — as opposed to the current emphasis on “social skills” and extroversion. Ironically enough, the ability to keep your mouth shut is highly valued when you work long-term in small groups, as opposed to today’s fragmented society.

In the pioneer/westward expansion days, not only did families not live alone, but they didn’t travel alone either. They may have had their own piece of ground, but it wouldn’t have been terribly far from other families or from a local community. Yes there may have been well documented cases of families truly living alone, but that probably was the exception, not the rule. Few people prior to 1900 would have chosen isolation unless there was absolutely no choice, ie a fugative from the law.

We seem to have that luxury of even imagining such an existence today, though as accustomed as we are to modern conveniences, it probably would be quite a bit harder for us, not the least of which because we’re so far removed from basic survival skills.