Minimalist Living: When a Lot Less Is More | Hacker News Reader

Minimalist Living: When a Lot Less Is More

time.com

61 pointssnadahalli58 comments

There is something very appealing about owning a small number of material possessions and living a "minimalist" lifestyle. But I'm well aware of the messy contradictions surrounding such an issue. Living minimally is a choice you can make when you live in relatively rich country. It's not a choice for many millions of others around the world who make do with little because of their circumstances. What's more, our economies (certainly "Western" economies) are geared to the production and consumption of goods, if not for our own populations then for export to other countries for them to consume. So can only a small number of us choose to live minimally as long as everyone else decides not to? How else are we going to buy the expensive laptop essential to our minimalist life? (Am I being too cynical?)

And does minimal living always equate to sustainable living? If you're jetting all over the world in a plane, is that environmentally friendly? Wouldn't the locals prefer you spend some of your tourist money on their goods and services so they too can live a comfortable life? Many environmentalists believe the huge amount of resources needed to rear and feed animals is unsustainable. Giving up meat or reducing our consumption could be considered sustainable, but it's not what people would consider as part of a minimal lifestyle.

And finally, is it really a choice between a consumer/material lifestyle and a minimal lifestyle? Or more realistically, a choice between excessive material consumption (e.g. 70 shirts as stated in the article) or just a more modest material lifestyle?

I don't think you need to worry about the economy collapsing because of a wide spread adoption of minimalism, conspicuous consumption seems to be an innate trait.

I can to some degree understand urban minimalism, but that just means you are betting on others providing services as needed.

Start living more suburban, never mind rural, and you quickly start to get into a "for a rainy day" mentality.

I don't really get the idea of "sustainable living"

as in, I'm not supposed to eat beef or fly on a plane, because there are not enough of those things to support everyone on the planet doing at US rates

Like, I get that if everyone started eating beef that would take an oversized share of arriable land, but wouldn't that then be reflected in the price for beef?

I like hamburger, but if I had to pay fois gras prices for it because everyone in China liked it too, driving up the price for beef, I'd probably switch to eating something different

if we're still at cheap beef prices, seems like a pretty strong signal to me, that current beef consumption is in fact sustainable

The primary resource limitation for food isn't mere land (we have plenty) or water (plenty as long as you don't live in a temporarily reclaimed desert) but petrochemicals. Your food comes out of an oil well. When the well empties, you stop getting food. Pretty much that simple.

isn't your sustainability status with regards to that conveyed by price information as well though?

if eating beef or flying in planes are using up too many petrochemicals, shouldn't the price go up, and price you out of using them?

"isn't your sustainability status with regards to that conveyed by price information as well though?"

No, the sustainability of production isn't included in the price, and that's part of the problem. There have been suggestions on how to fix this (e.g. carbon tax) but none have come to pass (not on a wide scale anyway).

are you talking about pollution externalities?

or production sustainability in terms of "we might run out"?

because I'm pretty sure information regarding the latter is priced in

Both. Pollution externalities are basically unpriced, and oil production is massively subsidised. Governments suffer from hyperbolic discounting - they would rather keep gas prices low for the next election than deal with the expensive and difficult long-term process of transitioning to more sustainable sources of energy.

that's an interesting take

"hyperbolic discounting" is an interesting phrase, I'm curious about to what degree that has been studied as an economic/political phenomenon

seems like its something that govenments clearly do, but its not obvious how long they can do it

also all economic actors discount the future at varying rates

"also all economic actors discount the future at varying rates"

Which future are you referring to, the near future? Economic actors generally care about the profit which is closest to them, any consideration of the future beyond that is considerably weaker.

Also, consideration of economic actors is an abstract idea, what is being discussed is the reality of what exists today. What would you propose for ensuring the overall costs were more completely reflected in the final price?

well, I mean some actors are more future oriented than others, but everyone prefers a dollar today to a dollar a year from now,

politicians probably have a weaker future orientation than most, but they're not unique in discounting the future

I don't philosphically have any problem with carbon taxes, or some legal liability scheme to capture overall costs

You're taking it on faith that the price of beef in the store currently reflects the actual costs of producing that beef. And that it would continue to do so if the beef industry became even larger and more powerful.

But it isn't true, current "cheap beef prices" (they are actually up a lot just now [1]) are a reflection, in part, of the public funds and public property use that are routinely donated to agribusiness.

You can't tell what the cost of beef is by looking at the pricetag, and that's true about a lot of real-world products and services. You can't rely on the market to give you a signal in such cases. And you can't tell which cases are which without digging in to every one.

I don't mean to pick on you, exactly, but your attitude is one I see online frequently. "I took Econ 101 and therefore I can tell which global industrial supply chains are or are not sustainable just by looking at price-tags in the grocery store." When even real economists get things wrong all the time.

[1] http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=beef&months...

how long can a government distort prices?

even a distorted price gives information, no?

"the messy contradictions surrounding such an issue"

Consider another, its OK to keep hobby stuff per the article. I'm sure they were thinking of a (singular) fishing pole or a pair of hiking boots. Anyone into ham radio, electronics, carpentry, computers, metalworking knows you can easily fill a basement over the course of a lifetime while remaining "minimal" as per the strict definition.

I could get rid of my artwork, books, and fridge door clutter, but it wouldn't improve my life very much.

I started to live minimal two years ago. I noticed I wasn't happy at all with my life and decided to go travelling the world, something that I always wanted to do, but somehow never did. I gave away almost all my stuff, what I have left is what fits in my backpack.

I have no job, no house and barely any money. I met my girlfriend during my travels and together we've been travelling for 10 months, of which the last 4 we've spent living in a cave on Tenerife and now we're staying for a short while at a friend in The Netherlands to replenish our funds for further travelling.

I own a laptop, 4 pairs of pants (2 long, 2 short), 6 shirts, some underwear, 2 mobile phones, an external hard drive, a dj controller, an e-reader, some cutlery and a bowl, a tent, a sleeping bag and mat, personal hygiene items, one pair of shoes, two warm sweaters, and a guitar.

I never buy things like clothes, as I can find those almost everywhere for free, i.e. free shops or so called freeboxes at (hippie/nomad) communities all over the world. On Tenerife we did a lot of dumpster diving, something that at first required me to overcome some shame, but now I'm amazed to see for example how much perfectly good food supermarkets throw away, just because the date expired, or because there are spots on the banana's, or a whole bag of apples is thrown away because one got crushed during transportation. Two to three times a week we left with a backpack full of tomatoes, sweet pepper, onions, bananas, avocado's, cookies, milk, cheese, etcetera and cooked meals to share with others. In bins around second hand stores or appartment buildings there are often bags full of clothes, and most of the time (in our case) they even smell fresh/washed. For me, going on a 'recycling mission' feels a bit like a lottery :) General tip: don't go through the bags of household garbage, those are disgusting. (Interested? See http://trashwiki.org)

Anyway, this life makes me really happy, as my life is full with experience, adventure, nice people and no worries. My goal for the next years is to become fully self-sustainable, to live without money and to not be dependent on dumpster diving either, as I am aware this would not work if everybody starts doing it. My plan for now is to find a proper place to start an ecovillage, to put my experiences into practice and be completely self-sustainable, not dependent on any other system than the ecosystem.

Try tropical countries, easier time finding food on trees in the street.

Do you have a blog by any chance?

I once started a photo blog on soup.io, but as there are sometimes months where I'm rarely online, I have neglected this big time.

It is definitely a wish for me to write down what I do and what happens to me, but I haven't spent too much time yet considering what exactly to write (what do people want to read/know about?), and the transition from full time IT professional to a nomadic lifestyle has taken up a lot of my time. For instance, during my first year I ended up in a very laid back community, where I really indulged in doing basically nothing for a long time except hanging out with people. Of course, I needed this rest, but it started to make me lazy after a while as well. I realized then that this kind of life is not sustainable and wouldn't work if everyone would do this. So now my quest is to find that way of life that anyone could adapt to and is fulfilling, and mold this into a framework that I can write down and publish.

Your question reminds me that I should indeed start a blog and as I will be living in a house with internet for a while, I shall set myself up to exploring this possibility :)

Hey man, are you by any chance still staying in The Netherlands in the meantime? would love to hear more of your story! FYI, I live in Amsterdam currently.

Hey,

I'm staying in Amsterdam, in Bajesdorp :) My username works for Facebook/Gmail as well if you want to find me :)

(HN should have PM functionality)

So for example what would you do if you decided you want to go for a hike one day? You don't own any hiking boots, only a pair of shoes. Does that mean lot of activities aren't possible for you because you want to own as little as possible?

If I only owned one pair of shoes I'd choose a pair I could comfortably walk ten miles in.

Great - but then those boots are too heavy for walking around in a city - and are those boots suitable for wet or dry conditions?

I'd love to have less stuff, but I don't know how that doesn't turn into simply having the wrong stuff.

I love my Waldviertler boots:

http://w4tler.at/schuhe/jaga-schwarz-herren

Perfect for almost everything all year. This guy [1] walked 15.000 km with them. He needed just 3 pairs of them.

[1] http://www.globalchange.at/home/willkommen.php?main=home&sub...

I've effectively used hiking boots for city-life for years. Yes, they are heavier, and the first week you get tired of walking faster than everyone else, but then it becomes natural.

I've used the same pair of lightweight waterproof Timberland boots for the last 10 years (in the Spring, Fall, and Winter). It's not a problem at all walking around a city (Boston & NYC) in them, or hiking outdoors. In the summer, I go with my barefoot shoes, but that's a luxury and not necessary.

(really a reply to sibling)

I just did exactly this. There is now ten miles a week of walking in my commute. I wore out three pairs of shoes before spending a bit more for some Doc Martens; they meet exactly this requirement. Not too heavy for "city" walking, although a bit heavier than trainers. No problem in the wet. Durable. The only reason I wouldn't go hillwalking in them is wanting to keep them clean.

(This is almost literally the "Vimes boots theory of poverty" from Pratchett)

I get your point but I think a lot of people overestimate the amount of special gear they need to pursue certain activities. Sure, if you're going to be in the wilderness for days, hiking boots and outdoor clothing are a good idea. A few hours walking through the forest, you're fine wearing whatever.

And then the weather turns and you are in deep dodo.

I wonder how many times i have read a news report about some tourist that needed to be rescued because he or she tried to visit some view or other in shorts and loafers.

My shoes are hiking boots :) I recycled myself some nice Teva sandals in October, but after 4 months in the rough landscape of Tenerife, they were ruined so I threw them away. If I need new shoes, I know I will find them somewhere, most likely in a freeshop.

It all depends on how minimal you want to go. I own three pairs of footwear. An everyday pair that I use for everything from walking to work to mowing, a more formal pair for special occasions, and a pair of work boots I use for a variety of other circumstances--dirty work, times I need waterproof footwear, felling trees, they'd work for hiking but are heavy, if I want something warm in winter (where I put on an extra pair of thick socks). If I was in a different circumstance I might be able to get by with less, but the lesson I take home from the minimalism movement (which I'm not a part of) isn't that I should have the bare minimum of stuff; it's that I should consider having have less stuff and should be more mindful of why I have the things I do.

So if you're hiking a lot and sneakers don't cut it, go ahead and get something that does. But applying the lesson above, if you think about it and you hike only occasionally and it's on easy terrain and sneakers really are good enough, then don't buy the hiking gear that might make those easy hikes 1% better. That 1% comes at a cost of A) the purchase price itself, and B) having more stuff in your life to deal with. Yeah, it's nice to have sweet gear even in those circumstances, but it doesn't really make life appreciably better. Overall, cumulatively, such purchases make life worse.

I'm considering doing exactly this sometime next year, and I have a lot of questions, if you're interested in having an American pen pal! Let me know and I'll give you my email.

This comes up every now and again. Some people seem to like living this way. They're usually young men, although this article mentions a family (but gives no details). It certainly requires shearing off all commitments that might require you to have stuff.

While being very far from "minimalist", I've moved house and helped a few people move over the past year, and every time there is a large chunk of stuff which has to be thrown away. Sometimes it's old tat, sometimes it's genuinely useful and once valuable but consumes too much space (sofas are a particular problem, but furniture and kitchen goods are often victims of this). I don't like throwing things away which have pleasant associations or are still useful, and this leads me to avoid acquiring them in the first place.

(That reminds me, must finish buying a shed for my outdoor junk...)

There's an entire infrastructure of capitalism set up for us to buy things. There isn't really a comparable one for taking them away and getting money back. Partly because owning a thing de-standardises it; it acquires a history and potentially hidden problems.

Another part is that most stuff people own is effectively worthless. I think a lot of people don't really take into account the full cost of stuff including time and cognitive overhead.

"If it's worthless, why did I pay money for it?"

It doesn't start off worthless. That's why I singled out furniture, it has a huge gap between cost and resale value despite being "durable".

Then there is sentimental value. Not everything is pure economics. We need some things to satisfy the part of us that isn't utility maximising robot.

America does not have a good used market mentality, so after someone gains their utility from a purchase they feel that the trash is the only option.

It would be nice if the secondhand market was better for sure. Right now for almost all goods under a few hundred dollars it's cheaper for me to buy a new one on Amazon vs the full cost of finding purchasing and transporting a second hand version.

Moveloot is trying to do this with furniture, which I think is a good starting point.

I was minimalist, my wife was not and is not. It's led to no end of strife in our marriage. I've come learn about her motivation for keeping things. Often it's what I call a 'scarcity' mentality where for some reason, she's afraid she will be without one day, and need something and not be able to go buy it. For example, she thinks she has to keep a partially used swatch of linoleum because it may be needed someday. Or old pots and pans because one of the kids may need them when they move out and start a household of their own.

I've witnessed a few occasions where she's pulled something odd out of a box that just happened to be needed. She gets a great deal of satisfaction from being able to do this.

>To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. Thomas A. Edison

I fear that all of this minimalism will lead to people being unable to fix things, or to imagine new usages of things; the only reason my cables on my computer desk are cleanly attached and not on the floor is that I had a powertool and some wire attachers and the knowhow to use them. I don't own a dryer but I do remember my dad fixing the family drier several times - I suppose if you lived a minimal lifestyle you would go without a drier, but what about a vacum?

Heck where would we be if we didn't have a bunch of junk computers to play around with when we were kids?

I’ve never thought about this but I agree to an extent. Keeping things around for your children to hack on would very useful for their development. Books and kitchen equipment could also be very important.

I think those that wanted to adopt this lifestyle while raising family would have to look at keeping things that are actually hackable and look to renting the rest. But it may not be cheap compared to just owning said stuff for children to hack on.

Very true. People who take pride in not owning a pair of skis, of a life jacket, or a fishing rod, is people who either are inactive or throw everything away because you can always get new stuff.

A life without room for tools is a life I'm not interested in living. I'll keep buying the newly minted minimalists' old stuff on Craigslist and fixing it up for myself.

Although we own a fair amount of real estate, my wife and I live in a small house, and we periodically do the de-cluttering thing. My wife and I have been talking about going further and perhaps living in an RV and constantly travel.

One thing that facilitates this is having stuff online, and not in physical form: eBooks, audio books, and watch streaming entertainment. I have my library reduced now to only about 200 books, and de-cluttering these would be difficult because I do like physical books.

Edit: also, I have (mostly) worked remotely since 1998 so continuing to do some work while traveling would be possible.

"Some of them have received criticism for getting rid of their things when many families are barely getting by, that their behavior is only for people of a certain income level."

Dammit, I laughed very loudly at this and might have woken people up.

Thats the most American thing I've ever heard.

As human species we need to focus on two activities: experiencing meaningful things and creating them. Giving up meaningless materialism junk is a great practice that helps you to focus on real experiencing, but we need to be careful not stopping creating truly meaningful things.

I think this is going to get important economically.

There's only limited amount of resources a person can consume for consuming sake.

The rest is conspicuous consumption (buying a Ferrari to improve your social status) or its watered down versions brought to the ordinary folks via media brainwashing.

However, once over-consumption becomes a sign of low status (consider that being fat was once a sign of being well-off) it will become hard to keep consumption at current levels, not even mentioning growing it further.

Which in turn means that economies will start to shrink. Which, from a current economic viewpoint, sounds pretty scary.

Interesting story except it's far from novel; Zen Habits has been all about this for a long time. On a side note, why are many mainstream news site so difficult to read on mobile? Time ought to be minimizing their use of glitchy mobile JavaScript. Scrolling was painfully glitchy.

Might have something to do with the scrolling: the video at the top autoplays if it's visible and pauses if you scroll past it. If you've already paused it and you scroll past it makes the audio cut in and cut out for a second (at least on my machine). Scrolling back up causes it to autoplay again even though I already paused it.

They didn't even have reader available for mobile when I clicked. News sites are all but impossible to use without being able to isolate the story.

Translated: I only travel with MacBook Air and credit card.

Give me a T series Thinkpad, or a Panasonic Toughbook and maybe i'll give it a shot.

I always find this curious... In order to live minimally, your interests need to be minimal as well.

I'm a musician and woodworker that also enjoys electronics. It's very difficult to engage in these hobbies without having 'things' unless I'm lucky enough to pass along the burden of having these things to someone else who will let me have unrestricted access to them.

So this popular idea of 'living minimal' is unaccessible to me unless I wish to burden someone else with my hobbies, or to simply ignore my interests.

I still operate minimally in the constraints of that which I enjoy. Despite that, it requires a minimum of ~1200 sq/ft of space and 'things'. So it makes me wonder how minimally you need to live to be minimal enough to be considered minimal?

We don't need practice minimalism to extremities. Personally, minimalism to me is like having as few as possible in third and fourth buckets If I have things bucketed like compulsory , necessary, good to have and luxury.

My problem with minimalist living is that, quite often, adopters reduce any possession.

Although my physical items would fit in a small suitcase, I have several investments and properties to increase my personal wealth. It's not as superfluous as 50 pairs of shoes, as money itself can be used for valuable social change.

Any time I move, I try to divest myself of at least half of everything I own. I've moved with only what I could fit into luggage. The take on it that I'm more comfortable with now is--if I want it, I want something really nice. I work for a site that specializes in antiques and collectibles and such. If I want something, I go searching for a special example of that thing. It sheds at least part of the disposable nature of things.

If I could get my household to a point where we could look around and not wish the house had more storage, I'd be as happy as ... well, I'd just be happy. There's a great amount of stress that comes from having too much "stuff".

This reminds me of pg's lesser-known article "Stuff": http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com