Korean Job Discussion Forums

[blurgalurgalurga]

Hi, kiwiduncan and the other above posters.
In regards to the Chekhov--absolutely, the quote was taken out of context and not really applicable economically or politically to people in our situation. There are some parallels that I drew in my own mind, but I didn't really explain them well.
I quite agree with your position, and I think I came across a bit smarmy with my whole cabin fever/shining thing...all the rebuttals of that are quite valid. I was just trying to be funny, mostly. Obviously nobody's going to move that far out.
Back in Uni I read up a bit on another 'back-to-the-land' movement, related in some senses to the one happening in Chekhov's time, was in England in the 1880's, led by William Morris and some of his friends. Their philosophy and their art is known loosely as the 'Arts and Crafts' movement, and the painters in the group are called the 'Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.' A neat bunch of proto-hippies...basically they rejected the notion that industrialism increased happiness, and that labor saving devices actually made life better. Their basic tenet was that things are better if they're made by an individual, rather than by a factory, and that working the land is more satisfying than paying people to work it for you.
Cool stuff to check out, if you're not familiar with their story. Not exactly a happy ending; lots of success in some ways, less success in others.
Anyways cheers for the thread OP, sorry if I sounded like I was trying to put a stick in your spokes.

[blurgalurgalurga]

Oh, and by the way, the speaker I quoted was a character in a Chekhov story, not Chekhov himself; and the accused was not part of any movement, but an individual who was coveting an estate so that he could be a country gentleman, not so that he could work the land himself.
There was a very popular movement in Chekhov's Russia in which the young educated aristocrats would go out into the countryside and try to teach the peasants (newly freed serfs, as somebody mentioned) a 'better way' of life, and a higher appreciation of capital 'N' Nature. It was deeply unsuccessful for many reasons. Again, not entirely relevant. I guess I just like quoting people out of context...
One more thing Kiwiduncan--I disagree with you on one point. I think people in general are no more materialistic and greedy now than they were a hundred years ago.

[kiwiduncan]

Hey Blurgalurgalurga. Don't worry, from the way you first mentioned the Chekhov stuff I could see you were not necessarily agreeing with it - just posting it up for discussion. I didn't think you were taking the piss at all and appreciated your comments and jokes. I know that I myself tend to treat these issues quite seriously so we all need to leaven our thoughts with humour

And actually, I totally agree with you that people were probably just as materialistic one hundred years ago. We just have more advanced machines and technology that often makes our behaviour more damaging, and a wider range of material goods and lifestyles to aspire to.

Damn, class time.

[blurgalurgalurga]

Kiwiduncan wrote

"...people were probably just as materialistic one hundred years ago. We just have more advanced machines and technology that often makes our behaviour more damaging..."

This reminded me of something I read some years ago, just before the turn of the last century. Can't remember where, but I think it was John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards: the Dictatorship of Reason in the West."

Anyway, the guy giving the lecture was talking about millennialism and what bunk it is, as it was something that people have gone on and on about non-stop since Jesus was in short pants, and hey, the world hasn't ended yet.

But then some wag in the audience said, "yeah, but the difference is, people now have the power to do it to themselves. We don't need no four horsemen; we can do it."

Saul, if that's indeed who provided the story, admitted that he hadn't thought of that.

(Here follows a rambling blather in which connections aren't drawn and conclusions aren't made--skip to the link, it's better.)

I believe that people have certain tendencies that recur throughout history. Some of them are good, some of them are bad. The back-to-the-land urge is certainly nothing unique to modern times, and not unique to the western countries either. Similarly, the urge to live well, and eat a good dinner every night, and be safe--those are all universal as well. But now, as you pointed out, the way in which much of the world goes about attaining those three very basic things is doing an amazing amount of damage. And it's got so much momentum, this industrialized system we inhabit, it's hard to imagine how anybody can really do much except bail out.
Anyways, see you in the hills, I guess...
Oh yeah, here's a good link to a short wikipedia article about some of the Back-to-the-Land movements this century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-the-land_movement

[kiwiduncan]

This is a nice thread. I'm happy to know there are like-minded people here. By any chance, have you ever met any Koreans with the same kind of aspirations? I do remember reading about a bunch young Korean families that decided to drop out of the rat-race and all move to an abandoned village somewhere in the south, but after 5 years in Korea I've met very few alternative lifestylers here.

Right, time to address some of the posters...

Canuckistan, congratulations on your purchase. 40acres is a decent size. Looks like parts of Kiwiland. I guess you're still here earning money to build a ski lodge eh?

Sojourner1, good point about actually needing some way of supporting yourself once back in your own country. I'm torn between staying for a few more years in order to get 100% of the cash I need, or going back in a year and biting the bullet with a mortgage. I'm fortunate that I'm pretty frugal with my money and, with the exception of high quality mountainbikes, considerable myself far from materialistic. What kind of professional work would you consider? It seems a lot of people here are open to the idea of becoming teachers.

"Anyway", A horse would be better than a car for sure. For day to day commuting I'll be sticking to a bicycle but I may have to invest in a beaten up old pick-up too. It would be very practical for picking up manure, topsoil, building materials etc. No ugly-as-shit Korean SUV for me thanks.

In terms of contributing to the fight to save the environment I came to the conclusion several years ago that buying fairtrade goods, joining a few rallies and wearing the t-shirt were - though admirable first steps - were not nearly enough. The voices of environmentalists will always be drowned out by an endless barrage of advertising slogans, and the environmental movement has for a large part been subsumed and subverted by mainstream media and corporate interests. Look at cars for example. These days the main message is 'reduce greenhouse gases - buy a new, 'cleaner' car'. Very rarely do we hear a simple message like 'keep your old car, just drive it half as often'. So I've become very sceptical about whether a few small 'green' improvements in our mainstream suburban lives will really be enough to turn things around. For me the only sensible option is grabbing a seat in the lifeboat.

Unfortunately a bit of healthy scepticism can very quickly turn into cynicism and paranoia. I spent a week in Spain last year with the intention of helping out a guy who had bought a few acres on top of a mountain. The guy was a nut-job with Mad-max visions of a future world of carnage, chaos and destruction. He couldn't speak much Spanish and was not part of the local community. He told me off for talking to some Spanish mountainbikers who, he feared, might make a mental note of his location and cycle up in the middle of the night to steal his turnips. He'd maxed out his credit cards in order to pay for his tools and materials, figuring that when 'the shit hits the fan' the global econmoy would melt down and he'd be creditor free. He hadn't even paid for the land properly - his wealthy London based sister had loaned him the money. In short he'd gone about everything in the wrong way and was living in an eco-survivalist fantasy world.

So I took a step back from this abyss.

Completely cutting oneself off would be a pretty lonely and sad way to live one's life. I want to be part of a community where I can still go to a pub, meet friends for dinner and even have the convenience of a few nearby shops from time to time. But I hope I'll be in a situation where I can help lead by example. Telling the highschool boys that well, no, driving a Holden to your school just around the corner is not really that impressive, helping out in the wider community and exchanging gardening tips with enlightened neighbours across the valley.

Like you 'Anyway' a teaching job in a small town setting seems like the way to go. As for us being 'bourgeoisie' - it's just a matter of priorities isn't it? We all occupy land in one way or another. Massive tracts of Indonesian rainforest are being destroyed for palm oil plantations, and vast areas of American cornbelt are now dedicated to corn for ethanol, all for the cause of providing 'guilt-free' biofuels. Give me a horse and a couple of acres instead thanks.

Quercus, the ironic thing is land in the States actually appears to be cheaper than kiwi land. But we've had quite a few American greenies move to NZ over the last few decades and there are entire rural areas in NZ now composed on British, American and German alternative lifestylers. Do some research on the Takaka area in Nelson. The pottery capital of NZ. I agree with you that there are plenty of interesting things to do in the countryside. Build a shack, weed the garden, restore a wetland, dig a pond, weed the garden, fix the shack, go mountain biking, weed the garden, pick fruit, make a tree house, cut firewood, plant some trees, weed the garden, Sit in the sunshine with homemade cider, weed the garden, hear the shack fall down. Spend less time on the internet and more time weeding the garden.

Compare this to the rat race. Drive to work, sit in office, drive home. Look forward to a gallery visit next week. (Cue Homer Simpson: "Mmmmm, culture")

CabbageTownRoyals, So, the Ureweras eh? Definately cheaper than down south.

Blurgalurgalurga, Interesting stuff about William Morris's movement. The first organised British settlements in New Zealand were in fact motivated by the same concerns about rapid industrialization and urbanisation in 19th century Britain. Many of the settlers from 1840 onwards came to New Zealand with "The New Zealand Company", which hoped to build a pre-industrial Arcadia in New Zealand with all the right segments of British society (landed gentry at the top, professionals under them, a respectable working next and a nice collection of god-fearing and sober farm workers at the bottom). It didn't work out as planned though. The New Zealand hill country was more suited stations (ranches) full of sheep than estates full of clothcap-clutching peasantry, and New Zealand's population was actually more urbanised than Britain by 1900.

I agree that humans around the world have the same basic traits, some good, some bad. Very few people are deliberately going out of their way to screw up the environment*** but the environment is getting screwed up nevertheless. People are all the same, whether we are black, white or asian, 'Westernised' or indigenous. Native societies may have looked pure and eco-friendly in the eyes of the first Europeans, but historical and archaeological research shows time and time again that humans tend to more into a new area, destroy the natural landscape and waste the resources, and only then, when they have no other choice, become 'at one with nature'. Check out Jared Diamond's 'Collapse' for more on this.

***I have read however that some Chinese factories are in fact being built deliberately dirty so that they can be 'retro-fitted' at a later date and the owners can claim carbon credits

[kiwiduncan]

OK, time for a bump. Given the spiraling cost of oil and the plummeting won I thought this thread might still be of some relevance.

Or we could just return back to the regular programme and talk about Lee Hyori's arse.

[JustJohn]

I'm still on track for my plan. Leaving the sparkle zone in a few months, hopefully starting up the research career.

[kentucker4]

[cdninkorea]

[tfunk]

Has anybody here ever lived out in a shack in the wilderness?

Is it practical? I used to want to 'live out in nature' but now I'm not so sure. It seems like an idealized and extreme reaction to the stresses of urban living.

Compared to Korea, living anywhere in Ireland is practically living in the wild anyhow..I can't get my urban 'fix' here anymore.

I guess everybody is different, but has anybody ever lived a substantial (+1 continuous year) removed from urban society and wanted to repeat the experience?

[kiwiduncan]

[kiwiduncan]

[tfunk]

[ttompatz]

[Captain Corea]