I guess because I care, though also because I’m curious, I would ask this question, in regard to what I’ve just described: how far from what is ethical, or acceptable from a humanistic point of view (which isn’t to say a religious view), would this approach to living be? Wherein a person declines to participate in society in any of the ways we are familiar with, and lives neither for their own sake nor for the benefit of others, but withdraws from the modes of ambition and action that are generally expected of an individual, not only as those modes bear on his community (assuming he has one), but also as they could sustain his own existence? So that somewhere that person could be found, sitting or standing, in whatever place they happened to be, like the statue of the Buddha, in a field or under a tree or beside a lake? Doing nothing, as opposed to doing something. Or doing something that has the appearance of nothing. Would such a life be susceptible to criticism on the grounds that its owner has shirked some role that was theirs to fulfill? Because they’d inherited it, by dint of being alive? And even if, by relinquishing that role, they couldn’t be accused of doing harm to anyone but themself? And in that case only passively? As they’d enact their own demise without any measure of violence, and instead could be said to only wait for it, or watch for it?