The collective sprawl of societal living shapes, and molds dictates what people are as well as what they become, and it is far from far fetched that living in isolation from society would have its benefits. To completely cut oneself off from the rest of the world with a solar-powered home and a well for water in addition to everything else that is necessary for healthy isolation is to become truly independent. Even those immersed in society whom we call “independent” are actually quite dependent on the very society in which they live. A measure of dependency is relative to the levels of dependency that others have. Children raised in isolation would be bred stronger in several important ways, and one of those important ways is psychologically. One’s perspective of “self” would be different, and there would be less chance of depression. Depression typically stems from issues with outside influences whose conveyed messages seem to indicate that one is somehow of lesser value while isolation greatly decreases the number of outside influences. There is also no economic standing to reach or to be used as self-classification.
One would likely have whatever he or she needed because the only thing standing in his or her way is the will to put forth the requisite effort to obtain it. Food, for instance, is either grown, hunted, or caught; a person gets out of life what he or she puts into it rather than reaping what someone else has sewn. Most societal dwellers do not know how to farm for example, so they are dependent on someone else’s knowledge in that department; moreover, they reap what real farmers have sewn, which is not of their own effort and, thus, may not be their preference. Even the concept of “preference” is a result of societal living. Isolation yields an ability to maximize the essentials in life. The complexity of irrigation in an inner city, especially within a landlocked state, raises the price of such a simple and common commodity like water, yet isolationism requires only that one build a well for oneself, not for a community; furthermore, the cost is merely the effort that is put forth to build and maintain this well.
A person who has lived in isolation is liable to have a different concept in his or her mind of the word “cost”. This word has a direct correlation to the concept of currency for those who dwell in today’s society, but isolationism would more likely denote the effort or even the loss necessary to gain something. This means that a person living in isolation would have a firmer grasp of what effort is worth than someone who lives in today’s society. The idea of ascribing a numeric value (currency) to a resource or a service has skewed most people’s ideas of what things in life are really worth, and it has indirectly impinged upon common self-worth.
In a more practical sense, isolationism promotes critical thinking and provides a stable availability of resources not shared with anyone else. Pollution also amounts to essentially a non-issue; isolation can only even be attained away from the sprawl of others and, thus, outside the rim of waste and air pollution from things like streetlights, hairspray, or car exhaust. In this, isolationism contributes more toward healthy living.
Although being in total isolation would not be realistic it can show some of the possibly emotional and intellectual benefits. A more realistic situation is living off the grid but still being connected to society. It is a great thing to be able to use all of the things that make life easier, but to also know how to live when these luxuries may not be available due to a collapse of society or a disaster.
As I talked about previously our level of dependency is based on others so if we are able to do the things that are necessities to life we are much further ahead than most in society. By living off grid you can sustain yourself much longer than others which in most cases will help you wait out the early and worst times of a disaster or a societal breakdown.