4 ms·

Physically yes but not in any other sense. From the sounds of things he's not reduced the number of books and albums he owns, just changed the storage medium.

Physically yes but not in any other sense. From the sounds of things he's not reduced the number of books and albums he owns, just changed the storage medium. It also mentions that he has a backpack full of "designer clothes" which suggests that he's just as hung up on the nature of the things he does have. What's changed here is the medium but what would really be interesting is if there were a significant cultural shift but I don't see that - he still seems to be as much a consumer as he ever was.

paulgb 16y ago
> he still seems to be as much a consumer as he ever was I'm not debating that, but is it necessarily a bad thing? I don't interpreting your comment to say that it is, but it raises the question. The wonder of the internet and "consumer culture" is that we now have access to the creative output of millions of people we otherwise wouldn't. As long as I can choose my level of participation, I like having it there.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  That's a big question. I have nothing against consumption per se, though I do have a suspicion that many of us spend a reasonable amount of money on things which, for one reason or another, aren't actually that important to us. Consumption isn't necessarily bad but waste is. Maybe that's an interesting point - it may be that because so much of his life is digital he wastes less though I suspect it's not that straight forward. Perhaps there is no physical waste but we shouldn't underestimate the tiny drip drip drip power consumption (in theory for eternity) for on-line services and backups. And minimalism in this sense may actually make things worse. Having shelf after shelf of physical books / records / CDs is a reminder for many how much stuff they've got that they never read or listen to. I certainly know people who download (illegally in the case I'm thinking of so the definition of consumer is questionable) more music and more films than they will ever listen to or watch and certainly more than they would ever have if they had to physically store them. Rambling now but I suspect it's not as simple as it might appear at first glance.

paulgb 16y ago

> he still seems to be as much a consumer as he ever was I'm not debating that, but is it necessarily a bad thing? I don't interpreting your comment to say that it is, but it raises the question. The wonder of the internet and "consumer culture" is that we now have access to the creative output of millions of people we otherwise wouldn't. As long as I can choose my level of participation, I like having it there.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
That's a big question. I have nothing against consumption per se, though I do have a suspicion that many of us spend a reasonable amount of money on things which, for one reason or another, aren't actually that important to us. Consumption isn't necessarily bad but waste is. Maybe that's an interesting point - it may be that because so much of his life is digital he wastes less though I suspect it's not that straight forward. Perhaps there is no physical waste but we shouldn't underestimate the tiny drip drip drip power consumption (in theory for eternity) for on-line services and backups. And minimalism in this sense may actually make things worse. Having shelf after shelf of physical books / records / CDs is a reminder for many how much stuff they've got that they never read or listen to. I certainly know people who download (illegally in the case I'm thinking of so the definition of consumer is questionable) more music and more films than they will ever listen to or watch and certainly more than they would ever have if they had to physically store them. Rambling now but I suspect it's not as simple as it might appear at first glance.