Los Puesteros, solitary men who look after ranches and livestock in Patagonia
newyorker.com148 points by bookofjoe 16 hours ago
148 points by bookofjoe 16 hours ago
Good article about living at a remote estancia at the bottom of Argentina, January 1971, 'The Housewife at the End of the World'. Not too much has changed since then.
https://archive.org/details/edg-ng-1961/edg%20NG%201971-01%2...
These photos are beautiful: https://media.newyorker.com/photos/6a7f7ed55b6cfa7eff424505/...
For real. Amazing work. And also, there’s a reason people refuse to give up shooting on film. Especially medium format film.
To be fair, all the folks who refuse to give up something has some sort of reasoning for doing so :)
I was just looking up lightkeeper positions in my province. Unfortunately no openings right now. But it would be an interesting job for an introvert like myself.
Yesterday I was reading about this place in Oregon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Shirk_Ranch
Today, with a modern vehicle, it is 1.5 hours from the nearest 'town' and 2 from the county seat, which has 2000 people.
I can't imagine how remote that must have been in 1900. What the seasons must have looked like going by, and how far the rest of the world must have felt.
I recently spent some time out that way staying at the Hart Mountain Refuge and visited the place where Oregon, California and Nevada meet just south of nearby Adel. I was fascinated about how remote everything is even in a modern vehicle.
I couldn't imagine traveling that area by foot or horse. Eastern Oregon is a fascinating and beautiful place. I wrote a bit about it on my blog.
https://object.computer/2026/07/15/summer-slows-and-trips-do...
The above link, https://archive.ph/XDM2H
does not work for me. However I can see that there is plenty of food (perhaps too much) at the end of the world.
Looks amazing. Just finagle a small solar array for power, some backup batteries and a satellite uplink for the web and I'd be there in a heartbest.
Take a 2 week long vacation deep somewhere doing just this, you will appreciate it but more than likely come to realize it is not something you would prefer long term. If you can find a middle ground, to me that’s the dream.
During COVID lockdown with:
- my wife
- au pair
- 3 kids (all under 5)
- dog
I thought that was plenty of human interaction (I'm somewhat extroverted) until we had a friend come over and chat with us outside on the porch.
I couldn't believe how, for lack of a better word, "refreshing" it felt. It was an excellent reminder that we are largely social creatures who also need some variety in the social circles we interact with.
At least the extroverts among us.
Many (most) introverts turn into extremely chatty individuals when talking to the right person regarding the right subject(s).
How does that support the idea that they need variety in who they're socializing with?
Introverts behave (almost) the same among their close ones. Its just that that bar of social need fills up much quicker
I think it looks romantic from the perspective of someone in a major metro area. But long term, that sort of lifestyle is only for the people who can really endure that. After a while I think most would not want that remoteness.
Same... that's the goal now. Try to get a place somewhere remote, cabin, fireplace, books, Starlink, maybe a diesel truck and couple of dogs.
Are you open to the other tasks this life requires or are you just looking for western comfort but in a place far from whatever you have now?
Living out here means dealing with real problems because there is no infrastructure. You need to know how to survive if that solar panels break and you need 2 weeks to get a new ones. What happens if the food delivery couldn't make it for one extra week because the one guy who flies that out is sick. Can you handle illness without medicine or a doctor for a few days. etc..
The people shown in this article live very differently then the starlink solar van campers who work in tech and glamp out in the Sierra Nevda on Saturday night.
I think a lot of people want the feeling of being in that sort of space without any of the hard parts. I personally would settle for being a few miles from the nearest person (maybe ten), a well-fenced-off property with a safe well, a good electric fence around it all, some weapons to protect myself, a couple of dogs, a handful of kittens, a place to store food, a good connection to the net (not starlink; I would settle for something a bit slower and terrestrial), some farm animals which procreate reasonably fast, and a decent diesel truck.
fyi taking care of a smallish homestead is a full time job, in winter, and two full time jobs or more in summer.
Yeah all of that plus a wife. I want to be relatively alone not solitary. I have that setup right now. About 30 minutes from a major city, 30 acres, remote work and my wife and kid. Kid goes to a good school, we go out to nice dinners on the weekend, I make tech big bucks but it’s a farm life other than that.
I grew up in post-USSR state and living in those conditions was part of my childhood. I understand the limitations. I'm just tired of city life and all property has been sold by my parents. I would be okay living 50 miles away from a major city like a lot of folks do here in Texas. My initial comment was perhaps a little ambitious, but I'm not a hermit. The issue is, living out in the country is probably more expensive than my current situation.
But why?
You can "isolate" in less isolated places.
Also what's the point if the activity you're describing is linking through other people anyway (just over internet).
I think they'd intend to consume content, not to interact with it, but commenting here discredits my interpretation.
Anyway, isolation and solitude seem lovely until you get appendicitis.
Please don't romanticize isolation. We have enough elderly folk existing in dire loneliness in assisted-living facilities and nursing homes who understand the true definition of it.
People aren't allowed to enjoy something because other people don't enjoy it? Other people are experiencing something they didn't choose, so nobody should be allowed to choose it?
Whoever can enjoy what ever. There is some danger in romanticize things. Romanticizing shows the good in something but leaves out the difficulties. Some may very well enjoy an extremely remote and isolated lifestyle but it is not a Disney cruise of Hollywood movie.
I think they're suggesting that those who romanticize it actually just have never truly experienced it, and will not appreciate it if they do.
Exactly, like what happened to me when I tried to be a vegetarian.
People who try to become vegetarians because they think they should rarely last. You need to want to. (context: vegetarian for 40 years, apart from the occasional bit of white fish).
please somebody bottle this lesson distill it and start teaching it to kids using a framework of similar pro social behaviour
Hmm. I think you sorta need to feel "you should" before you "want to", for most people. I have gone through periods of veganism, lacto-vegetarianism, ovo-lacto vegetarianism, ovo-lacto-pescatarian (and with and without poultry), etc. At the end of the day, my body was not built to be vegetarian in any capacity. It stops working properly without red meat, even (even when I try to supplement iron in other ways, my body literally does not function properly). I can go without chicken, but not other animal sources. It's a shame; I sort of didn't mind the food if it was prepared properly, but it is dangerous to suggest everyone can follow the same diet.
This is somewhat, what happened to me. I found I lost all energy, and my strength was about half what it was.
We all have unique biomes in our gut, and they're tailored to us. If you lose it, eg something kills all your gut bacteria, you will be very sick. The only cure is to have a transplant from a relative. Literally fecal matter is taken from a donar, pureed, and shoved up your wahzoo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_microbiota_transplant
My point? Your and my gut bacteria may need meat, and it could be why some cannot do the vegan thing. If your gut bacteria isn't happy, you aren't. And you can't just swap that out.
https://www.allergicliving.com/2026/08/10/fecal-transplant-p...
You can probably just put some poop in a gelcap... (this is not medical advice!)
Yes, but this study isn't replacing the entire biome. What I was citing, was a case of people having lost their gut bacteria completely. They use a relative, as using a random person in such cases, which isn't a match for that person's genetic history, can be quite harmful.
It's precisely why they seek a close relative.
Adding some additional gut bacteria doesn't replace everything you have. Otherwise, you'd get sick from eating a salad someone else prepared, and ingesting some of their bacteria. The peanut thing may be introducing an additional bacterium which perhaps processes peanuts in a better fashion, but without supplanting anything?
So I won't say you're wrong. But without trials I won't say you're right, either.
as is often pointed out, loneliness and solitude are two different things. The latter, especially in nature, can be a very formative and restorative experience.
Solitude by choice is one thing. Leaving when you want to, returning to a life with more connections, etc.
These men are probably doing this job because it is work they can get.
Where do I sign up? Seriously. ¿Dónde solicito el empleo?
They probably all are former software developers. I would imagine the waitlist is very long
Incredible photos. First thing that came to my mind was an awareness of the contrast between "the full breadth of humanity experience" vs "Silicon Valley's view of humanity". I don't know if that makes sense, but it's literally the first thing that came to my mind.
Seeing the photos, the first thing that came to mind was "Wow,really well kept and clean."
Chilean Patagonia, not Patagonia, Inc.
(/s though from the title did consider for a second that it meant a retail store in some isolated place)
Patagonia as it’s referred to today was never unpopulated, it still has an indigenous population. This narrative is used everywhere for vast untamed wilderness that just ignores the many people still living there.
I'm certainly willing to be corrected, but as far as I can tell from some brief searching, indigenous populations that exist in the region today aren't living some nomadic life out in the wilderness either. They're living in cities and towns like almost everyone else does.
So a post like this is still correct in how it's presented.
Almost no one is actually living out at "the end of the world" in the wilderness with few or no other people around, and it is potentially a topic of interest/curiosity to hear about those who do.
The lonely men sewing VC's ugly sweater vests, at the financial end of the world.
