Comment by rhn_mk1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhn_mk1 | Hacker News Reader

I share the author's concern about kipple, although I came to the same conclusion from a different starting point.

It's very difficult to jump off the train of kipple. On one hand, it's hard to make unwanted items useful again. Barely anyone will accept old electronics for free, tiny items like gifts and poscards are destined to be burned like the flowers in the article.

On the other hand, there's an expectation that everyone will keep getting new things. Family will notice the same sweater as last Christmas. Coworkers will organize Secret Santa where 90% of gifts serve to satisfy curiosity and nothing more, doomed to be thrown into a bottom of a drawer. Sellers will try to push for replacements instead of fixes once items start showing signs of wear.

For me, the journey didn't start from flowers, but from living in many places for a short time. Every kilogram off the back makes moving (and, conincidentally, life) easier. This minimalism blends well with the idea of overproducing, and now I know the word - kipple - that describes what I'm trying to fend off.

Interestingly, I find that it is difficult to escape the expectation of getting new things unless you're already wealthy. Poorer people can't afford a high quality new thing, so they buy a cheaper one to replace its utility. However, that object breaks, so they have to buy it again.

Is there a way to create the conditions of minimalism for everyone?

There are some fintech startups working on this idea. One of them is basically trying to bank the unbanked and then give their "safe" customers access to a no-interest loan when they need to make a large purchase or have an emergency come up (this is similar to schemes like PayPal Capital, except for consumers). That, combined with more education around the axiom of "I'm too poor to buy cheap things" would help provide more knowledge around reducing consumer culture.

How do you make money providing no interest loans to the unbanked? Do you have an example of a startup like that?

I can't name names, but the idea is you find other ways to extract the money. For example the benefit could be offered as part of a person's employment or it could be done through rev-share partnerships with retailers and consumer services companies.

Companies selling to "the Unbanked" may be willing to pay a fee to someone bringing those otherwise unattainable sales to them. Not sure, but perhaps something like LendingCircle?

I agree that this is true but so many of the things we buy have no utility. It is the chase that kills us (me included) not that we need some things.

There are groups that have that mindset to want less, to avoid the chase, like the Amish. (Not that they don't have other problems).

I think even simple rules can help though: * If haven't used something in the last year, sell it or get rid of it. * If you want to buy something that costs more than $X, wait a two weeks. If you still want it, wait two more weeks. If you still want it, then buy it. (So much of our spending is impulse). * Don't have cash/cards easily accessible or always on you or "saved" in sites you use. Having hurdles to spend money prevents it for things you don't need. This also means making a grocery list and only taking along enough money to buy what's on your list. * Buy used or thrift. I buy almost all of my clothes on eBay. High quality, name brand stuff that retails for $75-$150 for $15 shipped. This is even more true if you are a less popular size. * etc.....

> There are groups that have that mindset to want less, to avoid the chase, like the Amish. (Not that they don't have other problems).

I do, and I educated myself to it. Interestingly, buying something (intended as adding) for me, is as painful as it is to lose something for other general people.

This is sometimes called a "Ghetto Tax" [1] or the Sam Vimes [2] boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

I think mass production helps a bit with this by reducing the costs of things, but it doesn't really address the problem.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/us/19poor.html?ei=5088&en=... [2] http://discworld.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes#Vimes.27_Boots

I think people could achieve that same feeling through buying actual consumables (in part). Going to the grocery store in search of comice pears has really fulfilled that desire for “unobtainium”. Plus they’re delicious.

> Poorer people can't afford a high quality new thing, so they buy a cheaper one to replace its utility

I'm somewhat (but not entirely) skeptical about this, as price does not necessarily equates to build quality, but also to functionality; in addition to that, obsolence can be engineered also in high-end products (infamously, washing machines), therefore, in the full range.

> Is there a way to create the conditions of minimalism for everyone?

I am a (relative) minimalist, but I think that paradoxically, minimalist is an unnatural human condition, as much as dieting is, as hoarding goods (both material and immaterial) is deeply rooted in human psyche.

Of course, this could be "tamed" the same way violence is, but there are many incentives to tame violence, and comparatively none (in real world; of course, ideally, there is plenty) to "tame consumption".

Opting out of consumerism is one of the easiest ways to engage in direct action for social change -- it just requires you to do _nothing_, and be proud of it! The only difficulty is maintaining emotional strength to resist bullying, and the pain that comes from adopting a mindset that a loved one giving you a gift is harmful to your psyche.

I once heard a relative say "if they don't send thankyou cards, I'll just stop sending gifts". So I killed two bird with one stone by stopping the thankyou cards for unwanted gifts :-)

>On the other hand, there's an expectation that everyone will keep getting new things. Family will notice the same sweater as last Christmas. Coworkers will organize Secret Santa where 90% of gifts serve to satisfy curiosity and nothing more, doomed to be thrown into a bottom of a drawer. Sellers will try to push for replacements instead of fixes once items start showing signs of wear

Well, let's wait until we're out of (cheaply mined) resources, and that crap will come to an end.

> Well, let's wait until we're out of (cheaply mined) resources...

At that point I think we'll be mining landfills. But yes, the disposable, replace everything, super short refresh cycle has to end. My wife just got rid of her Nexus 4 from 2012 - a five year run. Is that good enough or can we get them to go longer?

I think it's going to be up to companies who produce such devices to invest in longevity. As long as they produce software updates which require new hardware, people are going to eventually need to update the hardware.

Unfortunately, right now, it doesn't seem like it's in the best interest of companies to make a device that lasts for 10 years which they continue to support through software updates.

Sometimes I do a mental juggle: In my life, provided my phones last for ~3 years, I'll probably end up buying between 10-20 phones. Multiply that out by (in theory) the population of earth, * the exponential growth factor, and you suddenly realise how impossible that would be. So, somethings got to change - people have to optimise for what they've got, not what can be sold to them.

Per Apple, a new iPhone results in emissions roughly equivalent to burning 3 gallons of gasoline.

https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPh...

The CO2 emissions of course aren't a perfect proxy for the environmental impact (and Apple is likely a leader in reducing the amount so other phones will be higher), but it at least gets us in the ball park.

Looking at the numbers I don't think phones are the first thing to worry about.

I'd love to have my phones go 5 years, but our two nexus 4s made it just half that. Others have been less.

I think part of the problem is the rate of change: a smart phone from 10 years ago is dramatically different from one 5 years ago.

That rate of change is slowing, though, just like it did in desktop and laptop computers about 5 years ago.

When they increase flash and RAM a bit more, I think it will make sense to make (and buy) more durable phone hardware.

I used to lust after the latest flagship phones, and while the Galaxy S8 my work has just equipped me with is extremely nice, it doesn't really do anything new that I actually need. VoLTE and WiFi Calling are nice, but hardly something that would make me swap out a perfectly functioning phone.

My 2 year old Moto X Play does everything I need (Firefox, Messenger and Spotify, 90% of the time), and I only bought it because my old phone broke and the X Play had the longest battery life of any reasonably priced smartphone at the time.

When it eventually breaks, I'm just going to get a budget model. If I could get a dumbphone/featurephone with a week-long battery life, that could do Firefox, Messenger and Spotify in any reasonable fashion, I would jump on it instantly.

> I used to lust after the latest flagship phones, and while the Galaxy S8 my work has just equipped me with is extremely nice, it doesn't really do anything new that I actually need. VoLTE and WiFi Calling are nice, but hardly something that would make me swap out a perfectly functioning phone.

Also, not even remotely new with the S8; it was supported at least back to the Note 5 / S6 generation, possibly earlier.

S6 had it, my previous work phone was an S5, which is why I needed an upgrade, my department is handling the VoLTE rollout to our customers.

I would have been fine with an S6 or S7, but my company has standardized on the S8/S8+ (and iPhone X for some managers, because of course).

Which specific resources do you think will no longer be cheap to mine? Because mining technology seems to be improving at least as fast as resources are depleted.

This is why i hate gift giving.

Do what the Japanese do: gift consumables. In the worst case you would receive something you don't like the taste of, don't normally use, or can't eat due to allergies, but you can just pass the gift on to someone who would appreciate it. Either way, at some point the gift is consumed (eaten or drunk in the case of food, used, or spent in the case of money) and its gone. No kipple.

The idea is never to give something that will burden the receiver. In Japan homes tend to be small, so anything that can't be consumed would be an unthoughtful gift (unless you knew that the person specifically wanted/needed it).

Thank you. That solved Christmas shopping for me.

Fruit cake! The gift everyone loves to throw away!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com