Thoreau’s and Emerson’s thoughts are very similar. They both incorporate nature into their writing in some way. In Emerson’s work, he describes how nature is good for us and we can learn to be our true self with that. He goes on to say how with that comes acceptance and self-love. In Thoreau’s work, he actually spends time secluded and away from the community as well. They both think that society influences us and we should learn to stick to our true selves. The main idea of “Where I Lived and What I Lived For?” is that people should live their lives the way they want to, and not how society wants them to be. Thoreau believes that we should be free in life and not tied down to anything. For example, how he connects a farm to a jail. He is saying that we shouldn’t focus on one thing and hold ourselves to that. He also mentions simplicity many times throughout the text. He is trying to get across that we should live life with only the necessities. We don’t need all the materialistic things. All we need is happiness and ourselves. We can see this described as well in “The Conclusion”. He talks about how being poor is not a bad thing because again, materialistic things should not matter. He believes that being poor and not having a lot of better than having everything in the world. It helps you become a more honest, genuine person. There would be many benefits of trying out Thoreau’s experiment. You could cut out influences of society and learn to focus on yourself, rather than just focusing on opinions of others. I think I would miss the interaction with others. I think that is one thing all that everyone needs in life and it is hard to live without. Even if I did want to leave by myself out away from everyone else, I don’t think I could. I have no idea how to be a survivalist so I don’t think that would work very well for me. I think a reader should be able to take things out of their ideas because it still applies to modern life.