Daniel Suelo, the man without money
Previously in my semi-regular Extreme Personal Finance series, I’ve highlighted:
- A couple who paid off their $220,000 mortgage in three years
- People who live on ,000 a year
- Don Schrader, the man who lives on $10 a day
- Rina Kelley, the reporter who lived for one month as a freegan
Yesterday, my friend Castle sent me the story of a man who makes these other folks look like spendthrifts.
The Man Without Money
Writing for Details magazine, Christopher Ketcham profiles Daniel Suelo, the man who lives without money. From the article:
Nine years ago, in the autumn of 2000, Suelo decided to stop using money. He just quit it, like a bad drug habit. His dwelling, hidden high in a canyon lined with waterfalls, is an hour by foot from the desert town of Moab, Utah, where people who know him are of two minds: He’s either a latter-day prophet or an irredeemable hobo.
Suelo lives in a small cave. Much like those in the freegan movement, he generally consumes wasted food from restaurants, grocery stores, etc. Suelo supplements his diet by foraging for plants, mushrooms — and fresh roadkill.
How did Suelo come to adopt this lifestyle? Ketcham’s article describes the two years he spent in Peace Corps, posted to a remote Ecuadorean village:
The tribe had been getting richer for a decade, and during the two years he was there he watched as the villagers began to adopt the economics of modernity. They sold the food from their fields — quinoa, potatoes, corn, lentils — for cash, which they used to purchase things they didn’t need, as Suelo describes it.
They bought soda and white flour and refined sugar and noodles and big bags of MSG to flavor the starchy meals. They bought TVs. The more they spent, says Suelo, the more their health declined. He could measure the deterioration on his charts. “It looked,” he says, “like money was impoverishing them.”
This experience (and many others) led Suelo to Buddhism and asceticism. It led him to give up money.
Cave-Blogger
There’s a lot more to Seulo’s life than can be summarized in Ketcham’s short profile for Details magazine. Fortunately, you can learn more about a life without money from Suelo himself. Suelo uses the Moab Public Library to maintain a blog called Zero Currency, which he updates about once a month. His post last Tuesday included a brief response to the Details article. Suelo writes:
…My life is not really the life of an ascetic. Chris [the author of the magazine article] told me “this life seems hard”. I told him yes, but I also said that my life is easier than it ever was when I had money, and that it’s easier than most anybody’s life I know.
Really, though, Suelo’s blog is less remarkable than his primary website, which is called Living Without Money. It’s here that he answers all of the questions people have about his lifestyle. (Check out the list of frequently asked questions in the left sidebar, or read through his enormous one-page FAQ.)
Reading Suelo’s writing is like peeking into the mind of a genius — or a madman.
Back to the Basics
When she sent me Ketcham’s article yesterday, Castle wrote:
A good friend once said she didn’t think I value money enough and I’ve thought about that a lot. I have always been uncomfortable with the concept of money and consumerism seems foreign me. I know, I know, I am poisoned by it, too. I’ve always felt a strong urge to go back to basics and I mean REALLY basic. This guy in this article has done what I’ve only vaguely dreamed of. Please read it and tell me what you think of his choices.
As long-time readers know, I too feel a pull “back to the basics”. I’m very much a part of our consumer culture, but I pine for an idealized vision of simple living. (I’m under no illusions that it’s as easy and care-free as I’d like it to be.)
But Suelo takes it to an extreme. I couldn’t live that way. I don’t want to live that way. I’m all in favor of simplicity, but I believe there’s a balance to be achieved. I don’t mind living in the world of money; I just want to build a life where money and consumerism aren’t my primary focus.
What’s more, I don’t believe this is a lifestyle that can be adopted en masse. (And Suelo’s response to this particular point is unsatisfying.) If everybody chose to life without money, nobody could live without money. But the truth is, 99.99% of the population has no desire to live this way. And because of this, people like Suelo (and others I’ve profiled in my Extreme Personal Finance series) can do what they do. I wouldn’t call them freeloaders (as some have done); instead, I’d argue they’re exploiting holes in our consumerist culture.
To that end, I think what they’re doing is great. Their lifestyle isn’t for me, and their vision of an ideal world isn’t for me, but reality of what they’re doing in this world is fascinating, and much more interesting to me than, say, the life of Donald Trump.
For further discussions of Suelo’s choices, check out:
- Reddit: Modern-day caveman lives on zero dollars a day
- Huffington Post: The man who survives without money
- Guardian UK: Free spirit or freeloader?
Finally, Google Video has a low-resolution 15-minute film about Suelo called Moneyless in Moab.
Could you live a life without money? Does the idea appeal to you in any way? Do you find stories like Suelo’s inspiring? Repugnant? Or something in between?
Become A Money Boss And Join 15,000 Others
Subscribe to the GRS Insider (FREE) and we’ll give you a copy of the Money Boss Manifesto (also FREE)
There are 84 comments to "Daniel Suelo, the man without money".
If a homeless guy adopts a manifesto does it make him inherently more interesting? That’s all I see here.
eh I don’t buy it. He attempts to draw a parallel between having money and health, but the tribe he cites got unhealthy because they didn’t know anything about nutrition. They just as easily could have used their newfound money for healthy food, or health care, and gotten healthier/happier.
Also there’s nothing unnatural or unhealthy about MSG, I wish people would stop acting like it’s the worst poison of the modern era.
Tyler, if that’s all you see here, then you’re not looking closely enough.
Suelo is a highly-educated, highly-skilled man who chose to give up money. While there’s some portion of homeless people who live that way by choice, it’s not large.
What’s more, the point isn’t that Suelo is homeless, but that he’s promoting a money-less lifestyle as a virtue, as something that more people should adopt. This is what’s interesting and worth discussing.
I, for one, don’t think it’s possible. In his writing, Suelo cites the birds and the bees and the animals of the earth and how they live in a free or “gift” economy. But I’m not so certain that’s how nature operates.
Nature, red in tooth and claw, does have instances of a money economy, as researchers are beginning to discover. Animals barter. Some pay for sex. They have complex symbiotic relationships. And while these aren’t the same as, say, the E.U.’s standardized currency, it’s evidence that exchanging value is something that occurs more than just in the human world.
And I think that’s really where Suelo misses the boat. Each of us has different talents and different interests. I probably couldn’t build a good shelter for myself, but my friend Craig could. (He’s an architect.) What’s wrong with a system of exchange that allows me to trade my skills for Craig’s? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that at all. And as a brief history of money makes clear, money evolved as a way for us to trade our goods and services so that we don’t each have to know everything. We can specialize.
Anyhow, I think you’re not being a deep reader here. There’s a lot to this story. It’s more than just “a homeless man with a manifesto”.
I hope he never gets slapped with a late fee from the library.
I don’t know if I could live without money. I certainly couldn’t live without some sort of economic exchange, and I’ve been substituting bartering for some money transactions lately.
On an individual basis, I’m sure it can work for a long time. Problems would start to arise when more people started to do the same.
@evan (#2)
I love me some MSG. For real. 🙂
@Chett (#4)
Though I edited it out of the final post, I originally had a brief bit about how the whole “blogging from the library” thing was a curious case of cognitive dissonance. “I reject money, but not the taxpayer-supporter library.” I cut this, though, because I could buy an argument that this was an exception in order to spread his message.
I also cut a long rant about Henry David Thoreau. Kris and I read Walden a decade ago. I liked it. Kris didn’t. But we both had trouble with how Thoreau (and, especially, his followers) characterized his lifestyle. Dude was a mooch! He didn’t live free on the shores of Walden Pond. He borrowed tons of stuff and lived of the generosity of others. That’s fine, but call it what it is.
I’m kind of chatty today, aren’t I? 🙂
Oh, jeez. I think I always read stories like this with equal parts envy and disdain. It’s been pointed out that Suelo could not live his life this way if everyone else did, and it’s a bit of a cop out to answer that criticism the way he did. Obviously our society is dependent on currency, but if we all just dropped everything tomorrow and decided to live “in the now,” what would happen? The whole world would change, maybe for the better but maybe not. To me, it seems like it’s ultimately easier for Suelo to live moneyless, relying on scavenging fields and dumpsters and speaking of a fundamental change in society, comfortable in the thought that it’s likely never to happen. It would be much more difficult to work every day to balance money and beliefs so that money isn’t the most important thing. Like JD says, I don’t mind money, I just don’t want it to be my #1 concern. I don’t think money itself is evil, just the way we worship it.
I’m not offended by the idea of Suelo’s blog; in fact it’s reassuring to see him make contact with the outside world. I wonder if he has family, if there are people who would depend on him in a time of crisis. It seems terribly lonely to live in a cave by yourself, and that’s the thing that bugs me most about his story. And I should point out that if he was someone other than an able-bodied man, if he were a woman or someone with a family to support, this life would be much more dangerous and difficult.
If everyone lived the way this guy did would we have any scientific research? Would we have modern medicine? Would we have the internet?
Maybe this guy would argue that these things aren’t important, but if the goal is to live longer with more knowledge about the world then I’d say we’re doing pretty damn well with our modern capitalist system.
Of course we could all go back to living like the “noble savage”. This dude just has a case of “back in the day” syndrome. You know, how so many think things were better in the past. The past sucked a lot more than the present. We just forget the day to day tedium over the years.
My biggest criticism of his lifestyle is that he doesn’t help a single person in the entire world. He talks about people giving him donations and volunteering their services to help him, but when does he give back? I work a job, I pay taxes, those taxes help some people who are suffering. I also give donations to worthy causes. As my income grows, I will give ore to charity.
How many African AIDS victims will Daniel Suelo help in his lifetime? How many acres of forest will he donate to a forest reserve? How many starving children will he help feed?
Could you live a life without money? ahhh does the question really to be justified with an answer
Homeboy lost his screws!!
Living w/o money is like living w/o oxygen
Who pays for the library he uses?
It’s an interesting story, but I don’t see any real end game for him. So he is just going to hang out in his cave and die in the wilderness? Which is perfectly fine if that’s what he prefers, but what is he contributing to society? He is giving us a website about why we should reject money, but as many have pointed out, that can’t work if everyone takes that route.
I do like the general push away from consumerism and stuff. There is no doubt we could make things a lot more simple and depend on money a lot less than we do now. Perhaps the ‘madness’ of his message will help it to resonate with some.
LOL… Wow, I didn’t know you’d profiled Don Schrader. (I’m from Albuquerque and went to UNM.) Definitely an interesting fellow.
If the world population gave up everything they had an adopted this man’s lifestyle, I believe we would end up repeating the development of civilization all over again and would wind up at roughly the same point we are at now.
Cave dwellers would band together in small communities because they are social creatures. They would recognise that it would be more efficient for the group if each member developed their specialties (carpentry, using JD’s example)and would develop a bartering system. Eventually, a currency would develop to ease the complications that come with bartering. Add thousands of years, and those cave dwellers would have a complex economy just like we have now. The currency isn’t the issue, our inherent consumerism and greed is.
Some other thoughts: Daniel IS relying on the system he shuns. He lives in a safe region because there is a government and military protecting the country he is living in. As pointed out, he also is making use of community resources such as the library. And, in the event of an emergency, he still has access to healthcare, etc. Living his lifestyle in other countries would look very different.
Also, in nature, resources are not free gifts. They are competed for and only the strongest and smartest survive. I don’t think mankind is going suddenly decide it is fine if our neighbor dies as long as we get the “gifts” we need.
I think he’s nuts – but that’s just my opinion.
I agree with Arabic Student – there seems to be a bit of a movement where people talk about living in simpler times, living off the land/grid blah blah blah.
If you go back a few hundred years then life was a lot simpler. It was also a lot shorter and people spent all their waking hours working to provide the necessities of life. In other words – it sucked.
The first thing that came to mind after reading this was that Suelo *does* use money. He uses the library that runs via donations and tax monies and eating discarded food purchased by others.
Interesting article, J.D. Mr. Suelo seems to misunderstand what money and materialism really are. Money is basically another kind of resource. How a person chooses to use it makes the outcome good or bad.
Money and rising wealth do not in and of themselves create materialism. While they can influence a person towards materialism, materialism actually comes from within a person because it is an attitude that overvalues acquiring physical possessions. Living moneyless does not necessarily make a person less or more materialistic than someone else who does use money. What makes a person materialistic is his attitude towards physical possessions.
In sum, money is just a tool, neither good nor evil. A person’s attitude towards it is the determining factor.
While I admire the spirit of this endeavor, I find him to be a bit self-righteous about it. It’s been pointed out before, but someone pays for that library and computer he uses. What about the rides he hitches? That car was bought by someone, and it no doubt uses gas or electricity, which are certainly not free. If he truly believed in a money-free society, he would walk in order to travel. Travel is a luxury, not a necessity, after all. Who pays for his website?
I think the lesson we can take from this is that there are very few things in life that we actually need, but frankly, I don’t find his lifestyle enviable or inspiring, just half-baked.
I pretty much agree with the comments here, so no need for me to reiterate.
I couldn’t like like that, and I wouldn’t want to. I consider it to be “roughing it” in a hotel with less than 3 stars. ^_~
Money isn’t evil, it’s a tool like any other. Blah, blah, others said it better than I do.
Frankly JD,
I found this to be a very interesting read, similar to the many other “extreme frugalist” articles you have posted. I believe the point that many readers are missing is exactly what you re-iterated in your response: this article was not posted so that others would convert to this gentleman’s lifestyle, or to boast that his lifestyle is better than any other, rather it was simply food for thought. It was a fresh and interesting perspective on living in a materialistic society with out being materialistic at all. On his website, Suelo doesn’t ask others to “be” like him, rather he asks that they broaden their mental horizons, and conciously think about how materialistic their lives are, and what they could do to reduce this sort of trend. He is a bare-bones survivalist.
If that kind of life is Dan Suelo’s thing, then so be it and kudos for him for pulling it off for however long he can.
I couldn’t do it. Then again, I’m aiming to be one of those people in “The Millionaire Next Door.”
J.D. You say, “This is what’s interesting and worth discussing.”
He thinks we should become cavemen, as he has (quite literally), and that it would be an improvement upon modern society. His “moneyless” society isn’t just moneyless, it’s economy-less, and has no means of production nor trade at all. He is a hunter-gatherer with the benefit of being able to scavenge leftovers from those far more productive than he is, and he implies he’d continue even without that benefit.
You’re right that this is interesting, but as a novelty. You and I and everyone else commenting here know that it’s not something we’re going to discuss in any serious way. It’s a foregone conclusion that we’ll stick with agriculture and medicine and heated homes, and most of the basic infrastructure that humanity has spent millennia developing to improve our lives.
“What can we get rid of without compromising our quality of life?” is an interesting question. “Everything” is not an answer worth a lot of consideration to anyone but extremists. But then I guess the article *is* titled “Extreme Personal Finance”.
J.D., I think you’re missing the boat with Walden. Thoreau wasn’t trying to convince us to go live in the woods, or to achieve for himself an independent lifestyle apart from society. His time at Walden was an experiment, to see what were the “necessaries of life.” His purpose was not to live apart from society, but to determine how someone can best live within society. After all, he eventually moved back into town and ran his family’s business (at one point, the pencils he designed and sold were considered the best available). If he had intended to propose that we achieve happiness by living in the woods, then his very act of moving back into town would have undermined his argument much more effectively than his borrowing a few tools now and again.
In the book the “Thoreau You Don’t Know”, author Robert Sullivan argues that Thoreau’s time at Walden was something of a parody of the many ill-fated communes then popping up all over the United States. In other words, that it was something of a joke — although a joke with a serious message.
Daniel Suelo, on the other hand, doesn’t appear to be making a joke at all. And I think you’re spot on when you argue that he’s merely exploting economic inefficiencies. I had a similar thought while reading Amy Dacyczyn’s “Tightwad Gazette”. Especially when she describes dumpster diving and shopping at second-hand stores. If we all wore our clothes until they fell apart, there would be no market for second-hand clothes. But not every lifestyle choice needs to be capable of replication. I agree with you on that also.
I caught this article yesterday, and this is the thing that came to mind. I would respect him more if he was choosing to live a life completely unassociated with money – but that’s not what he’s doing. He’s still taking advantage of government freebies, charity donations and garbage.
Good for him – I don’t want to live like that. (Although the thought of living an extremely scaled-down life has occured to me on occasion). But I think it’s disengenious to claim that he’s living without money. He IS reaping some benefits of our monetary system.
This sort of reminds me of when I read Evasion, which is a book about the punk rock version of this lifestyle with a lot more petty theft. But first the romanticism of all of sucks you in. In the end, the protagonist/writer just seemed full of himself, didn’t seem to really understand the ideals he was claiming to represent, and ignored the fact that he could enjoy his lifestyle only because he was white, young and able-bodied.
I wouldn’t go as far with Sueglo, he’s a genuine advocate for a gift economy (even if he doesn’t explain it very well). I wouldn’t want to live in his idea world, but I don’t think a gift economy is crazy or unworkable.
How can you say Suelo isn’t making a joke? He really seems to be.
I’d challenge him, if he’s really serious about living in his cave and detaching from the economy, to live solely on what he manages to grow himself or catch in the wild with his own hands, or using tools he fashions from the nature around him with nothing man-made. I’d further challenge him to not wear a stitch of clothing he didn’t collect the materials for out of nature, weave and sew himself.
Then he’d impress me. If he wants to unhook, go all the way.
Anybody who is ever caught using the world “need” within the context of budgets and expenditures should be sentenced to recite his FAQ every morning. Many people, especially ‘frugal people’, think they are slumming it when in fact almost all of them are living in the lap of luxury and unprecedented wealth and comfort. This guy is a gigantic kick in the balls. I love people who challenge the system like this. Even if we don’t want to live like him, no question we have tons to learn from him. Any thoughtful challenge to our lifestyle makes us reflect on what we are doing, and understand ourselves better. All of the criticisms and questions I see in the comments here are already answered articulately in the site – apparently few commenters bothered to RTFA.
Wow. I usually feel broke, but compared to that guy, I’m rolling in money.
I like having indoor plumbing and toilets that flush (and doesn’t come with the possibility of one getting bit by bugs or snakes while one ‘does their business’). I guess that lifestyle is ok with Daniel, but I don’t see how people can live like that happily, and not be bothered by the fact that they’re grubby, stinky and rolling in dirt. I guess I’m spoiled….I love my scorpion-free hot showers.
I have to admit I admire his primitive living skills, but yeah honestly all he’s doing is taking advantage of the byproducts of people who produce.
That and he alludes several times on both sites to people who have helped him out and given him stuff.
Really if I had a criticism of his lifestyle though, it’s that he can be helped, but he’s incapable of helping others.
Still an interesting case study.
I could never adapt this lifestyle, I don’t consider it ideal and I would not recommend it.
However. As #27 says, he makes a good point. He points out what can be gotten for free, in time of need. People at the extremes show us how to expand what is possible in the middle.
Not inspiring, exactly, but intriguing. Clearly living his way can be done. Given that, what more can I do that I haven’t thought of yet?
Very interesting, JD, thanks!
I would love to live a life without money.
I appreciate the value how open and fair minded people are being towards Mr Suelo, but that doesn’t make his actions any less selfish. We should really condemn his behavior as much as we should any deadbeat who refuses to get a job and lives off of the generosity of others.
If Suelo wasn’t living in a cave, but was holding to his ideals about not having money while living in his parents house, eating their food, and being clothed by them. Would any of you think well of him?
The only difference between what he is doing and mooching off his parents is that he is living off a more diverse source of charity, and living below what America calls a middle class lifestyle.
Being ascetic is not a virtue! Creation and growth are virtues. While we should definitely have long term plans and live within our means. The valorous path is not meekly accepting what is, but striving for something greater.
Speaking of which, I love what you’ve created with this site and your life JD.
This was a GREAT way to make me take a closer look at money… and how all of us are affected by it. You also inspired this roving mind to continue my search for other views. That, in turn, led me to find this 5 part series on YouTube that starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8&feature=fvw
The thing that scares me is that I’ve known a lot of the information in these videos but never took the time to put it all together like this does.
I hope your readers get as much from it as I have.
“I don’t mind living in the world of money; I just want to build a life where money and consumerism aren’t my primary focus.” This I agree with. Life without money would eventually turn into anarchy and chaos, and a life dedicated to money is doomed…headed for major trouble. I agree that a healthy balance is the best way and I don’t think there is a stronger arguement for anything but balance.
Money isn’t the *core* of my life. Family, friends, and shared experiences with loved ones is. If I were to shift to living in a cave, my goals and actions would still be to do things that made life better for all those that I cared for. So I wouldn’t be going out and spending money on a large screen television. But, I’d still work to find small treats, such as making our beds more comfortable or gathering extra berries for dessert. The sheer act of working long hours to earn paper currency to go buy manufactured sheets instead of spending hours in the woods gathering moss does not suddenly make the sheets a morally bankrupt choice.
A stoner, 20-ish years ago, the morning after, speaking sheepishly: “Yeah, I had this great idea last night. We can do away with all the money. Everybody would just live, and work, and instead of getting money you’d get credits and you could exchange your credits for stuff or services and people would give you their credits and . . . and . . . Oh. Never mind. Heh.”
On a separate note, the comments are far more interesting than Dan’s lifestyle. Thanks everybody.
Living in a big city, I could probably live comfortably on $65-80,000/yr if i didn’t have my mortgage and rented. That doesn’t sound like very little, but when your average 2bedroom costs $3,000-$4,000 where I live (36-48K after tax), it’s not a lot of money.
My spending habits haven’t kept up with my pay raises. And that in it of itself is probably my biggest success in personal finance. I have strayed a plenty, as I write in my blog, but if you can live off 65-80Kyr, but make 5-7X that through the write employer, industry and promotion, then retirement won’t be that far away.
1st yr MBA students out of Stanford and Berkeley were making $200,000 right out of school in Finance, so it is not unreasonable to expect someone 5-7 years out of business school make double to triple that.
Money is just a means to an end, and mine is financial freedom by 40.
Rgds,
RB
Rich By 30, Retire By 40
If this character truly lived “off the land”, the story would have some merit.
Any credibility is lost when he resorts to the highly unhealthy, as well as unapetizing practice of “dumpster diving” for subsistence.
Obviously, everyone can’t live the way he does. I’m not a pro-civilization, capitalism-is-great type, b/c every “advantage” we have comes at a terrible price. However, I’m not willing to live as spartan as he does. I like that there are people like him out there, b/c he reminds us all how little we really need to survive.
I do respect some things about him, though. I like the fact that he eats road kill and discarded food and whatnot. To me, if you want to go without money, then it’s right that you live in a cave and eat garbage. There are people who would compare themselves to Suelo, but they are really moochers. They couch surf, housesit, etc. They have central air, eat store-bought food, surf the web…all on someone else’s dime. They’re too delicate to squat in an abandoned house, let alone a cave. I have to respect that about him. At least he’s not a mooch.
Personally, found https://www.getrichslowly.org/the-secrets-of-financial-freedom-an-interview-with-the-millionaire-next-door/ more inspiring than this bum.
Going on any extreme is never healthy. It’s all about the middle way.
I don’t want to look back at my younger years and feel that I was so frugal, so miserly that I had to sacrifice so much to save.
Forgetaboutit. Live it up with what you got, but do so, so that your money lasts evenly throughout your entire life!
Rgds,
RB
FYI he’s not living off no money – he is using OUR money to get online at the Library and keep a blog. It’s called tax dollars. Just thought I’d throw that out there for free 😉
Edited to add: Just read more of the comments – guess I’m not the only one to notice that!
Okay, I had to comment on the comments of this post.
1) What does this man contribute? He does not contribute to global warming and others forms of pollution and so be implication he contributes to cleaner air. He contributes to more resources for our descendants in terms of both minerals and DNA information. I could go on. While we have scientific results being concentrated in the worlds libraries and ever more fun ways to entertain ourselves—granted, it makes people happy and live longer (not necessarily better)—other resources are being lost at ever increasing rates. Of course this is a value question … which is more valuable 1) A paper on the social dynamics of X author in the Nth century of Z country, or 2) A subspecies of some insect in some ecosystem not going extinct. Alternatively … which is more valuable … 1) [Ice on] the north pole, which will likely vanish during the summer months within 10 years or 2) Flights to Disneyland.
2) He contributes alternative views on society and he does not just do that by writing manifests. He actually lives it. Let me ask differently, does he do more or less positive for the world than someone working in marketing selling electric fly swatters? Or if we stick weith society, I daresay he contributes more towards our understanding of modern society than 99% of all humanities professors out there.
3) I would not call it leeching. He is using resources that would otherwise be wasted. Essentially, he is extending the resource cycle of consumer society which otherwise simply goes from mines and oilwells to stuff at Walmart and Macys and then back into the ground of landfills a few years later. He cleans up after our consumer mess, yes?
4) There is more to comfort than plushy toilet seats and golden handcuffs. Let me explain this with the analogy of “comfort food”. If you eat a lot of that, you feel comfortable while eating, but eventually, your living will be quite unhealthy and uncomfortable. Similarly, all this hard work modern life comes with the convenience and comfort of technology and stuff, but show me anyone who is not somewhat stressed in their work-work-buy-buy lifestyle which has half the control but twice the responsibility of a free man. I mean. We have blogs like GRS and prety much any other pf blog talking about emergency funds all the time. Emergency funds!
Yes, anything happens, and the only solution is to have money to go and pay for something. It is the last but only resort available to modern consumers. I do not think this guy worries about emergencies. Or what to wear for his next interview? Or whether he filed his forms correctly. I bet his blood pressure is low. I bet he doesn’t take medication regularly. I bet that he sleeps well at night every night. I bet he is happier than us.
Isn’t it really just that he’s making the market more efficient by exploiting the loopholes? That sounds like the very essence of capitalism.
As I understand them, gift economies are no more or less ‘nice’ than sale economies. You’re just expected to giveaway your talents/things and the more you giveaway, the greater your perceived status.
Early- There are ways of contributing to society other than academia. It’s telling that Suelo actually worked for the Peace Corps in the past, but now what does he do? Write a blog and scavenge for food for himself. He was in a position to help others and gave it up for a personal goal. He doesn’t encourage others to emulate him; he doesn’t propose any real solutions. He lives his insular life, and he’s happy, but he’s not doing any favors to society.
I think what this guy is doing is great and I thank you JD for posting an article about him.
I also think quite a few people reading this article felt bad for realizing how much money and resources the personally waste each and every day, so they have to attack this guy to make themselves feel better. And since this guy isn’t doing anything wrong, what did they attack? His usage of “community resources” — the library.
Oh my God. What a waste. All those tons of CO2 his once-per-month blog posting requires. And we’re paying for it people!! Cents and cents each month for his a few minutes of internet use!
@Mark
>>>I also think quite a few people reading this article felt bad for realizing how much money and resources the personally waste each and every day, so they have to attack this guy to make themselves feel better. And since this guy isn’t doing anything wrong, what did they attack? His usage of “community resources” – the library.<<<
No. People have been pointing out that he is NOT living on less, he is simply re-assigning the cost and living off others.
Your taxes pay for the library and other community resources – those that aren’t paid by donations – hence it is not really free as in beer. A few cents you say? Yeah, ok. How do you think the books get paid for?
I can see his philosophy – waste not, want not – it’s a great ideal. But the way in which he is living it sounds more to me like a bum with a clever excuse than an intellectual seeking a greater truth.
Emmy: In most cases, after a two-year stint in the Peace Corps, you’re done.
Which is better: a large emergency fund, or the skills to live through a real emergency e.g. earthquake, hurricane, social upheaval? I daresay this man is better prepared for an actual emergency than we are with our cushy savings accounts and zero survival skills.
Losing your job is a bummer. It is not an emergency.
Suelo says somethings about being with the sadhus and spending some time in a buddhist monastery, is he concentrating more on spirituality at present?
It is in the nature of humans to throw stones at other people and degrade them to make themselves feel good about themselves.
I think Suelo should not worry too much about explaining his lifestyle to other Americans or to the world and why he is doing it. He should keep doing what he is doing.
HE DOES NOT NEED AN AFFIRMATION OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG FROM ANY OF US MATERIALISTIC PEOPLE.
One more thing, I dont think suelo is leeching any resources, he only goes to the library to give us some much needed knowledge. He gets a ride from people who want to give him a ride, he does not go ask people for rides. He is not a scavenger, he gets his food from mother earth. If getting your food from mother earth is scavenging then we are all scavengers. The least we can do is critisize such people.
I believe Suelo is doing the ultimate in contributing – he’s living his life by example. People can contribute to the world in many ways. I was inspired by this article. I will not live at this extreme but I love seeing that someone is doing it and I will look for ways to apply some principles to my life. I don’t think he has to propose any real solutions. He’s living an example of one solution as he sees it. People get to look at that and see if any of his life could apply to theirs. That is a great way of proposing solutions. I was inspired but also don’t feel the pressure to go live in cave.
This is an interesting conversation. I think some of the things it reveals are very telling about our assumptions and way of life. For instance, some people would rather see things go to a landfill than for a hungry man to eat it. Perhaps libraries should close their doors to people who don’t have jobs? Should people with higher paying jobs be entitled to use the library more, or take more books out?
And as for him not making a contribution to society… He makes us look at the world a little differently. How is that not a contribution? I find it funny that people think it’s more important that he pay taxes than to serve as a dissenting voice in our society.
“What do birds and fish and lions and mushrooms and bees do? How do they do it?”
This is from his website on the response to why can’t everyone adopt his lifestyle. I thought his whole response was insane, but this line particularly annoyed me. Yes, everyone could stop using money. Then we would all have to fend for ourselves, just as the animals and plants he listed do. I, myself, would never want to live in a society where I would have to hurt or kill another human in competition for resources, because that is what animals and plants do.
By using money as a medium, humans can specialize in different niches of society and the end result is a farther advanced society with medicine and art and all sorts of things that would not be possible if we all had to make or do everything for ourselves.
I’m glad that there are people who forage through dumpsters to make more efficient use of waste, but why chastise society when it is society that affords him the luxury of being able to forage through dumpsters instead of battling a wolf for the last deer carcass in the woods?
@Four Pillars: I would have to disagree that a more primitive life “sucked.” I think that is based on how one defines happiness. I am far happier spending time in the garden than I am dealing with information overload on celebrity gossip on the radio or “enhancement” spam in my inbox. One could also argue that decreased life spans were in many cases a result of industrialization and urbanization of societies, and not an agrarian lifestyle. (I don’t see the Mennonites dieing any faster than the rest of us) And frankly, I have a DNR because I’d rather die with my boots on than waste away from disease that occurs after trying to prolong my life artificially.
I have no problem with the fact that one person chooses to live this way. He is free to do so and there is nothing wrong with it.
What I do have a problem with is when people advocate that all people should live this way. In my opinion this would be an absolute economic disaster. He says that if everyone lived in this way, people would not waste food and there would be more than enough food for everyone on earth. But this is not true whatsoever. The only reason we are able to create all this food is because mass farming is more efficient than subsistence farming. Should everyone decide to live like this, we would encounter mass starvation. It would kill what he sees as ‘evil consumerism’ but it would also kill people. It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face as they say.
If everyone lived like this it would destroy society (the people that advocate this would be quite happy with that). I agree with another comment here that we would eventually start to form communities again, we would have leaders again, wars again, rebirth of industry… and eventually we’d end up in a world not much different than today.
This guy really is a madman I believe, and what he is advocating does not sound much different than anarcho-primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism). This in my opinion is a dangerous thing. So it’s fine he lives this way, but anyone that advocates for a world that works like this in my opinion should not be taken seriously.
Competing for finite resources is what the whole of life does, so Daniel Suelo lives off the scraps and welfare provided by that competition. He does not have any competitors.
If our society followed this man’s practices, he (and many others) would quickly perish. He would have to defend his cave from intruders and the easy sources of food would vanish. That would be a lifestyle to blog about, except there wouldn’t be a library or internet.
I agree with above commenters — it seems like he’s living off “our” money.
If he was truly without cash, he’d be in the woods, covered in leaves, hunting only animals and foraging for berries.
But he’s in libraries and eating leftover food from restaurants that people paid for.
At any rate, my basic response was: Too far for me.
I’m cutting down on expenses ($700/mo so far), but I couldn’t and don’t need to live without money in such an extreme.
@Tony – Modern farming is only efficient in terms of the people employed, that is, labor hours. If you look at the required amounts of fertilizer, gas to operate the machines, both cheap, and topsoil loss, currently free, modern farming is terribly inefficient compared to biointensive gardening. If everybody did the latter, people would not starve. They would just have less time to watch TV—it takes a few hours a day to feed yourself and there’s enough land in the world to do so (yet).
I also want to point out that these people living on so little, don’t have children.
If you want kids, or a family (like I do).. you kind of need to adopt a different lifestyle.
By not earning money, I am not sure I can see the practicality of having children and making them live the same lifestyle from birth
What if they want to do different things? Head into society and do a job, earn money, live in a home?
You’re crippling them from the start, because going to school takes money — textbooks, field trips, regular food for nutrition, maybe learning how to play and instrument or dance.
(And even if the school took them for free, it’s being paid for in taxes by the government that we all share a responsibility in upholding & paying for.. so it’s not really being “free” is it?)
These hypothetical kids would end up being mentally crippled in society, not being able to even START to become educated (I don’t really believe in home schooling because no parent can know EVERYTHING about EVERY subject in the world)…
Even if they went to the library and studied every book in the library, they need the basics. And it’d be a sick experiment to see if a child from birth could adapt to that lifestyle — trying to live in a world that is structured.. without any sort of structure.
These people who have chosen this way of life, have had the benefit of being educated and cared for in a conventional way from birth, and they could make those choices as they got older.
But their kids (if they had any) wouldn’t have such a choice to do so.
It’s not wrong. It’s just not practical when you think about having kids.
With that being said, I definitely enjoyed the article, and the comments are great!
I really do believe that you can take a different view on life – being a conscious spender and not spend excessively, but to also not live in such an extreme as detailed above.
I could (and am) living VERY comfortably on $10k a year, including health care, and only if I had someone to pay the other $10k (his half). And no kids. It’s possible.
Our race would go backwards in technology and developments if we all adopted that lifestyle, which could be a good or bad thing…
….except that my view is that in this day and age, we’ve already set a standard for technology, and to go back to hunting animals and foraging for berries in a world that has already limited and destroyed so many natural resources, would be a potential disaster as with the sheer human population, we couldn’t ALL live off the land with how little there is.
Or maybe we could?
I think the best way to head back into the good ol’ days would be to turn into a farmer, live simply in the mountains, grow chickens and cows, veggies.. and just live to work for the food to eat.
But that’s assuming you don’t want your kids to go to school and do anything BUT become simple farmers too.
Hard call.
Good food for thought.
David: He also worked for five years in a women’s shelter, but said he didn’t feel comfortable getting paid to help people. So he went to live in a Buddhist temple in Thailand. It sounds more like he had a personal spiritual crisis than anything else.
a.b.: Primitive times did suck for the ladies. Just sayin’.
Interesting-this guy doesn’t pay for anything, including taxes. However, someone’s tax money is going toward his library usage for his blog. Doesn’t sound like he’s contributing at all.
I wish people would get off their high horses and realize that there are other ways to make a difference in the world than just paying taxes.
In my opinion, he’s following in the footsteps of many great artists, writers and thinkers who opened people’s eyes simply through their actions. He’s not making money from it either.
As for him not contributing… I’m willing to bet that two years in the Peace Corps and his other work helping less fortunate people is more than anything those of us here can boast.
@ Fabulously Broke: Kids today don’t have any choice on whether or not to grow up in this version of a world, with school, work, and a mortgage, so I dont see how you can rag on hypothetical parents who would choose to raise their kids in a life like this.
For the part about population, and “could everyone live like this”, with just hunting and gathering, no, not everyone could. The earth is vastly overpopulated, the carrying capacity is much lower than the current population. There would have to be a drastic population reduction (but that’s coming anyway, because our civilization is unsustainable, and will collapse eventually, then we’ll all be forced to live this way)
I believe in everything in moderation. This kind of extreme frugal living is no better or worse than the extreme indulgence we see in Hollywood (and elsewhere where people spend in excess of what’s necessary)! I personally find nothing admirable about Suelo’s lifestyle.
@Emmy,
I don’t know; at least they could drink beer (mead) when pregnant. 🙂 Certainly birth related mortalities were higher, but I was thinking more in terms of overall society.
@all
Humanity has always been discontent with their lot enough to seek “improvement,” but I find it funny that grandparents always look on future generations with sadness that they don’t appreciate simpler things. I would just argue that one can’t claim an entire timespan “sucked” just because of a lack of industrialization.
I agree with ERE that Suelo is extending the lifecycle of goods, and with JD that he’s exploiting societal loopholes. I think that many peoples’ responses seem angry, like he’s getting away with something, “why did he get out of the rat race?” so to speak.
I think people like Suelo are important because they remind us how dependent we are on the cycles of consumer goods, that even this one man who wants to live free of money can’t live without other people’s consumption.
Personally, I believe in becoming more self-sufficient where possible. I’m taking a soapmaking class next week. I like knowing if the soap manufacturers of the world disintegrate tomorrow, I won’t stink.
@FB – You’re probably right that if he had kids, they would have a hard time returning to middle class life because of the lack of institutionalization.
Do consider that this guy is quite educated by our definition, that is, degrees. On top of that he seems to know EVERYTHING needed in his world. He knows how to get shelter, food, heat, … Conversely, our so-called educated workers know very little about the world they live in other than how to do a particular office job and how to shop. If he had kids, they’d be on field trips every day. They’d probably be singing and dancing like other “primitives” instead of watching CSI and Hannah Montana like our sophisticated kids do.
In terms of home schooling, those who come closest are probably full time cruising sailors. They seem to report that their children are more mature and responsible for their age compared to institutionalized middle class kids (a 12 year old on solo-watch compared to a suburban 12 year old who needs a babysitter). Also they seem to come to college with an enthusiasm for learning you very rarely see in K12 students.
One of the reasons I do not want to have kids is specifically because I do not want them to suffer through the K12 system which cripples anyone with creativity and a modicum of independence and intelligence. How many K12 graduates can draw or paint? How many like to read? How many can entertain themselves without TV and Wii’s? How many trust their parents? Not many.
Here’s another case: one of my hiking buddies is living in a van to save money while he goes to grad school, and works as a park ranger in the summertime. He keeps a blog as well, and goes into practical and financial detail- start at the January entries:
http://spartanstudent.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html
Hope you’ll allow me a bit of self-promotion here. Just this morning I wrote about living off the grid with kids http://frugaldad.com/2009/07/24/living-off-the-grid-with-kids/. As you’ll see in the video, it is possible, but not without side effects.
@Early Retirement: Why not have kids and home-school them? This would allow you to instill many of the same values you hold dear, while avoiding the K12 system – which certainly has its faults.
@Frugal Dad – Because I also have other reasons 😉
With all due respect to those who support a non-monetary lifestyle, I think it misses the point.
Money is just a medium of exchange, a way of conveniently valuing unequal goods and services; I don’t see how giving it up would improve your lifestyle, but I can think of a lot of reasons why swearing it off would make matters worse.
Money isn’t the root of all evil itself, in fact the Biblical source of the saying is actually, For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Big difference! I can have money, and use money, but I don’t have to either love it or hate it, but just enjoy it for the utility it provides.
After reading this post, I went to Daniel’s web site and read the FAQ page. It was almost strange to read ideas and thoughts that resonated so much with my own Until now I have been unable to articulate as well as he has. Although I don’t think I would take to living in a cave, our ultimate goal is to be able to live without having to participate in our cosumerist way of life that has seemed to take over and overshadow what is really important. Reading about him through others and his own words has given me renewed courage to continue to make major changes in my life.
I didn’t have the time to read through every single post here, but it seems the majority of responses are questioning the authenticity of Daniel’s way of life and asking why he doesn’t live without ANY man-made possessions at all (library use, clothes, etc). I think that the essence of what he is doing is being lost in translation here, which is usually the case with those who think off the beaten path. I agree with Mary’s post… he has done more for others than most tax-paying Americans will EVER do, including myself.
I don’t think he is trying to push his way of life on others, but showing that it can be done and what living like this has done for him. It is inspiring for me personally, and I am thankful that you have brought us this story, which strangely enough I came across from another source today as well. I only hope that I will have half of Daniel’s courage to give up the materialistic reality that is so much a part of us.
@Anastasia:
“He’s doiong more for others than most tax-paying Americans will EVER do…”
Really? You really think so?
I don’t see anything remarkable whatsoever about purposely choosing to live in a manner where you are reduced to scrounging through garbage to feed yourself. I find that offensive. It’s bad enough there are homeless people who have to resort to that to survive, and we should help them restore dignity to their lives. This man is willfully renouncing the dignity to not eat refuse.
The guy is a parasite, and he’s deluding himself into thinking what he’s doing is ok.
@Gina
When I said he’s done more than most, I was referring to his time served in the Peace Corps and working for free at a women’s shelter.
What I find offensive is the amount of waste this country creates (not just food, but everything else). I find it hard to believe that putting to use something that someone else is throwing away could be offensive to anyone. Compared to how the rest of the world lives, our refuse is a six course meal and a luxury… And although for me personally dumpster diving would be an extreme way of life, his choice to do it is certainly not offending me. Accepting what little help other people freely give to survive is hardly parasitic.
These reactions to Daniel are fascinating!
Interesting guy. I think Mark (comment #46) said exactly what I way going to say. There is certainly something to learn and apply to our own lives here. Do I want to live in a cave? Certainly not….but I will and have been working to lower my impact on this world and spread that message to people I interact with.
i think there is something wrong with him. i once read somewhere that we are a product of our upbringing and that is why i won’t judge him. he saw the negative effects of misuse of money and with that he completely lost his mind and decided to live in a cave and eat rubbish and dead animals. Thats him. i on the other hand have seen the benefits of having a lot of money and that is why i want to be sinfully rich
Dear kenyantykoon,
Daniel Suelo was recently invited and spoke at a Ted Talk. He has been invited to give lectures and participate in conferences (which can be watched on Youtube) around the country. His biography The Man Who Quit Money was very well received and is an amazing read. He has contributed to the society around him, on levels that most of us will not ever achieve. He is well known for his time in the Peace Corp in Ecuador. He has a college degree from the University of Colorado, and is attempting to work on some of the biggest problems facing our modern society. I simply want you to know that he has not “lost his mind”.
Thank you for not “judging him”.
Richard
“I have nothing to ask but that you would remove to the other side, that you may not, by intercepting the sunshine, take from me what you cannot give” – Diogenes of Sinope
@ab
Most people living in developed countries in the late 20th to early 21st century would, in fact, consider that the primitive life sucked.
Working in your garden and being able to come into your centrally heated home (built to building code standards by someone other than you), using hot water (that you didn’t have to pump by hand from a well and heat on a woodstove), being able to take a shower (instead of a once weekly bath heated bucket by bucket on the stove), cooking the food you picked from your garden on your electric or gas range, storing leftovers in your refrigerator, having indoor plumbing, etc. does not come close to the experience pioneer families had when settling this country.
In fact, there was a reality show on the History Channel a few years ago about two couples that were sent to some rural area in Ontario or Manitoba and had to carve out a homestead there for a year. I’m not sure if it’s available to view online or is on video or DVD, but it would be worth watching.
It was hard, dirty, exhausting, lonely and many other things. It was also ultimately rewarding for the people who did it, but they would be the first to tell you what a rough time it was. It was a tremendous learning experience for them but it was anything but simple.
Not impressive at all! It’s just a matter of time before he gets ill from consuming decomposed & processed dumpster leftovers. Being penniless, who will pay for his ER visit or hospitalization? Just FYI, Taxpayers fund MedicAid!
Geezz, why can’t this dude grow his own garden & hunt for game animals which is a much healthier option? Plus, give back by volunteering & maintain some social skills. Just my two cents.
@shevy
You made assumptions, and didn’t read what I wrote. I never said it was simpler, I never said it was easier. I said the degree to which something “sucks” has more to do with how the individual defines happiness, and less to do with the actual scenario. I was arguing that it is just as possible to be happy with a primitive lifestyle as it is with today’s so called luxuries. You yourself said the people who homesteaded (which I watched btw) found it rewarding.
For the record, I consider things like central heat & air to be a luxury, one that I don’t have. I’ve also lived without running hot water before, and went for a period of time where most, if not all, of our cooking was done in a pioneer fashion. As a family we learned to make due with true needs, and are lucky enough to have the skills to build our own homestead if we needed. It’s easy to sit on a computer far away and make judgments with no knowledge of what it is to truly walk in someone’s shoes, whether it’s Mr. Suelo’s or mine.
Hey, you saw this article too. I commented how this idiot could certainly use a sun oven to cook his food, and stop needing to collect wood and start fires every day. I find it funny that this guy uses a blog, and the free services of modern life, while “shunning” today’s monetary system. I guarantee that if they closed the library that he uses “free”, he’d have greater appreciation for it. If his neighbor’s orchid was starved of water (regulated, purified, etc. by modern technology), we’d see how solid his survival skills really were. The difference between this stooge and actual indigenous people is that the later have a complete system of beliefs, traditions and roles that are required to support a GROUP of people, vice some quirky old bastard that smells like burnt tires.
I firmly believe that I could live without money. It would be difficult, but I could do it. Obviously it can be done. However, I would never want to.
I believe that beautiful things like art, philosophy, science and modern medicine could not have developed without money. As has been mentioned money came out of specialization of skills. You can’t advance in a field unless you are given the opportunity to specialize. You can’t write poetry or a novel or discover a planet or atom if all your energy and time are consumed with supporting your daily existence, which is what would have to happen if we all went back to living off the land directly.
I was more inspired by Hugh Sawyer who lived in a woods to raise money for the Woodland Trustin Oxfordshire while keeping a prestigious full time job at Sothebys. He lived in the open air with few posessions and in every other way lived a ‘normal’ life, paying taxes and hanging out with friends. He never comes over as being preachy or rightous and seems like a nice guy. He’s now living in the snowy forests of the Swiss Alps to raise money for Rainforest Concern. His blog can be found here: http://ditchmonkey.blogspot.com/
Daniel Suelo’s no money lifestyle is truly thought provoking. There are the humane considerations. Is this man troubled? How will he subsist? Is he in danger?
Then there are economic considerations. Could it be that Daniel is the most honest among us? After all, the US and world monetary systems are charades. Money is not backed by anything except debt. It is created out of thin air by a banking system that relies on continual debt.
If folks realized how dishonest, insidious and fragile our money and credit systems actually are, they would be left with a shuddering conclusion. Daniel Suelo has got it right while the rest of us have it all wrong.
Thanks Chuck, for being a voice of reason. Daniel Suelo was trying among other things, to point out the artificial, rigged, manipulated and unjust money-system (economy). As you pointed out, the economy and its fiat system of currency is built on debt and seems to require ever increasing levels of debt, for its survival. Poverty seems to be designed into our economy and only thrives if some large portion of our population is impoverished, slaving away at a “job” and deep in debt. Then, some smaller portion of the population can have some measure of wealth.
Thanks for your honesty and your expertise,
Richard