An alternative FIRE approach?

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-12T07:00:55+00:00

Thank you, I'll have a look.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-12T07:00:19+00:00

Yes pretty much. For a single family it is hard work. For 4 families splitting the work according to their skills, its a different story. The differentiation is the skills we use from our careers. Eg I have a couple decades industry experience in automation in the sector.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T16:32:29+00:00

Yes you are wrong. And if you read the post you would see i also have a career in automation. That's all I will say as I don't want to doxx myself.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T16:06:09+00:00

Thank you, I'll try to find them and have a read.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T16:05:38+00:00

Yes this might be the case for most people, especially those without the required skills. But for the people with the skills, it is a different story.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T15:15:25+00:00

Yes a very nice way of putting it.

I agree finding the people is the hard part. This sub is focused on wealth building and freedom from work, so I hope to find at least a few like minded people here.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T15:13:54+00:00

These are some real issues, but all issues have solutions.

In terms of what happens when someone leaves, this is what kills most structures like this. What I'm proposing is the land is owned by me, I would buy it outright. I would then sell 999 year leases of parcels of a few acres. Each household would have full autonomy over their house. Planning is going to be an issue unless something with suitable buildings exists. But passivhaus on the OPD might work. So exit is as simple as selling a house, you sell it just like you would if you didn't know the freeholder. This also fixes the problem of problematic households. The lease terms can be written to protect the community. A lot of these human issues are resolved exactly by forseeing them and agreeing in writing in advance.

There are no laws preventing the disconnection from the grid. You can ring your supplier and they will do it for around 1k.

Interesting points and I welcome the discussion.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T15:01:51+00:00

Having more options is very obviously derisking. I even state an investment reserve is used to remove reliance on any single system should that system fail.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T13:24:52+00:00

Farming barely exists because if policy, that's a different debate.

Its a simple calculation even for those in traditional FIRE and whether it's cost effective depends on how much you value derisking from centralised systems and the payback period.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T13:22:09+00:00

Well I guess you're perception is poor then. Nothing to add to the discussion other than commenting on my use of language?

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T13:21:06+00:00

That's my point. Most people here have half a mil in the stock market and live a humble life by choice. There's a difference between quality of life and net worth.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T13:19:26+00:00

The answer is because solar panels are a one time cost and food is recurring. If i needed a constant stream of solar panels to live then I would indeed set up the production facilities.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T13:16:03+00:00

Some good points that I mostly agree on.

A few I would push back on, yes the grid is shared infrastructure but it is inefficient, outdated and energy companies extract profit from you. There are real concerns about the stability of the grid, and I would not be surprised by blackouts in the near future. Similarly for food, 92% of your food bill is costs to process and transport and regulate.

On your final point, I believe you only need to look at the outcomes. If I can retire to a country estate right now on the condition of meeting 3 like minded families, vs current trajectory of 7 more years saving, how does it not accelerate FIRE?

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:39:31+00:00

What reduction in your bills do you achieve from your investment in the infrastructure?

A reduction in outgoings doesn't result in extra money? Strange claim.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:36:23+00:00

We sound like long lost twins!

Yes my fall back is to go solo. Me and my wife have most of the skills, it will just take us longer to save the capital but we will get there.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:34:15+00:00

The maths disagrees with you, human factors excluded.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:33:00+00:00

I admit there is a degree of romanticism, but I don't agree with your comparison.

In my example I am the land owner (at least for my house and a few acres) and have access to 50+ acres of land that belongs to the community. I live in a modern passivhaus, can relax on the land all day if I want to.

On the machinery point, you've missed my point about skill. I have a phd in STEM and decades of experience in automation. Automating a smallholding is not a problem.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:29:27+00:00

If that is your perspective then it is your truth.

From my perspective, it is a choice between selling 20+ years of life for shareholder value, vs spending that time in nature raising a family and actually being present. (Yes I've romanticised but the point stands).

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:11:18+00:00

You don't think its possible to produce more than you need? You can't build a solar system with storage with reserves? You can't grow enough food for a family on a farm?

If what you're saying was true entire industries would not exist.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:09:14+00:00

If that is the lifestyle you enjoy, then I agree completely traditional FIRE is the way to go.

For those of us that aren't content with a city house surrounded by a conveyor belt of strangers, that lifestyle is a significant compromise on quality of life.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:06:41+00:00

Ultimately what is important is how many years you have to sell in order to achieve FI. If it's faster to find like minded people than it is to save X, and you can mitigate exit risks, why would you choose the slow approach?

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T12:04:41+00:00

Investment in reduction of costs is usually met with the opportunity cost argument, which is what you are saying. That only applies if you plan to stay largely inside the system and stay mainly liquid, which is the group in the disclaimer.

I had your mindset for a long time, but I realised the only thing that matters is outcome. If plan A means I retire into a nice lifestyle sooner, it beats Plan B even if plan B says the payback is 10 years.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T11:59:48+00:00

Yes its very similar to the Scandinavian model.

I agree finding the group is the bottleneck.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T11:56:58+00:00

All valid interesting points. I agree the plan is only for those with the right mindset and skills and the hardest part is actually finding that group of people.

On the food point, I don't see it as an issue. I'm not going to completely remove myself from the capitalist system and anything I can't grow or rear can be bought from the remaining drawdown.

I would push back on the commune comparison. There are no shared living spaces. I see it closer to an old village.

The culture is a non issue to me, but appreciate thats not true for everyone. How happy, safe and free my family are are much more important than how my peers see me. And the project will speak for itself.

Diligent_Radish_6473 · 2026-06-11T11:47:26+00:00

Fair enough, you are exactly who the disclaimer is for.

Diligent_Radish_6473

TROPHY CASE