I think the Ferd vs Gert story is a bit black and white. While I dream of starting a permaculture farm I know that there are others who just have no desire to do so. There will always be cities and people who buy their food rather than produce it. The story got the Gert part right, where she can happily live off her land and has more leisure time overall, but I don't think Ferds have to be eternally unhappy like the original post suggests. We'll always have "Ferds", and its not a bad thing. Ferds can also achieve a life where they only have to work on things that make them happy while having overall more leisure time. Just like building a permaculture farm, it requires hard work upfront that can easily pay off in 10-20 years depending on your speed and desire. It all depends on investment, Gerts invest in their land, Ferds invest in the stock markets. Eventually Gert's investment pays for her lifestyle, and eventually Ferds does as well. Both require living below their means, and learning to want less. Neither Gert or Ferd can support a life where they eat at fancy restaurants every meal, buy the bleeding edge technology every year, or buy into all the gimmicky low quality items constantly pushed on us. There's happiness in both paths and neither are wrong.
There's also a 3rd story (or maybe a million different stories) where a Ferd from Paul's story becomes a Ferd like I've described above, and then eventually becomes a Gert with the money saved from the Ferd 2.0 stage. Or maybe Ferd 2.0 stays in the city and helps promote the Ferd 2.0 lifestyle I've described above which helps us as a people become happier while consuming less resources. There are many paths to happiness, and I think that all start with learning to want less and being happy with what you have. The rest follows.
P.S. if you want to see Ferd 2.0 in action, check out
Mr. Money Mustache
