Do People Who Live in the Woods Live Better Than Those in Cities?
The concept of quality of life often sparks lively discussions among those who live in various settings. Particularly in today's fast-paced urban environments, the idea of living "better" in the woods might appeal to many. However, defining what it means to live "better" can be subjective. Let’s explore the arguments for and against whether people who live in the woods truly live a better life compared to those in cities.
Defining 'Better'
Firstly, it is crucial to define what “better” means. For some, it might imply a higher standard of living with luxurious amenities; for others, it could mean greater self-reliance and a simpler, more fulfilling lifestyle. In the context of this discussion, “better” will refer to a lifestyle that promotes personal growth, health, and happiness.
Self-Reliance and Independence
People who live in the woods tend to be more self-reliant. Life in the woods often requires a diverse set of skills to manage daily necessities, such as fixing and maintaining equipment. For example, one might learn to repair a lawnmower, clear clogged drains, or fix a broken furnace. Numerous rural dwellers have developed niche skills that make them less dependent on external services and resources.
Consider the author’s personal experience: They have fixed various pieces of equipment including their furnace, lawn tractors, snow blowers, chain saws, log splitter, and weed trimmers. While they still rely on occasional professional help, their self-reliance is a significant factor in their quality of life. However, as they age, they have to adapt to new challenges, such as no longer being able to crawl under a car due to bad knees. Despite this, they continue to engage in activities such as cutting and splitting firewood, highlighting their ongoing self-sufficiency.
Comforts of Urban Living
In contrast, life in the city offers immediate access to a wide range of conveniences and services. For instance, all necessary household appliances and equipment can be quickly repaired or replaced without extensive effort. Additionally, urban areas offer various entertainment options such as nightlife, museums, and cultural venues, making life more vibrant and diverse.
However, city living comes with its own set of challenges. The constant noise, crowds, and traffic can take a toll on one's mental and physical health. Furthermore, urban dwellers often face the stress of modern life, including financial pressures, apartment maintenance, and noise from neighbors.
Personal Preferences and Satisfaction
Ultimately, whether one lives in the woods or the city can depend largely on personal preferences and life goals. For the author, the attraction to living in the woods stems from the serenity and freedom it provides. They enjoy the peace and quiet, the natural beauty, and the ability to see the stars at night. The absence of parking problems, traffic, and HOA regulations also adds to the appeal.
Moreover, the author has a 14,000-acre National Forest as their backyard, offering a vast natural environment. From the photos taken within a couple of miles of their home, it is evident that the surrounding landscape is picturesque and peaceful.
Conclusion
While both lifestyles have their advantages and disadvantages, the perception of "better" quality of life depends on individual preferences and priorities. For those who value self-reliance, nature, and simplicity, life in the woods might be more fulfilling. Conversely, for those who prioritize conveniences, social life, and diverse cultural experiences, city living might be preferable.
What is critical is that no one lifestyle is inherently better than the other; they simply cater to different needs and desires. It is thus important for individuals to choose a lifestyle that best aligns with their values and aspirations.