3 ms·

> The reality is, if you wish to combine self reliance and minimalism, you essentially must embrace a life of poverty. Why? If you take minimalism to the extr

by smoe 7y ago

> The reality is, if you wish to combine self reliance and minimalism, you essentially must embrace a life of poverty. Why? If you take minimalism to the extreme, and keep stripping away until reaching the bare essentials of living, then the basic tools and materials are what you left with. It would be "against" minimalism (which is not well defined anyway) to buy say a chain saw because you think you might need it one day or need it for a one off job, instead of borrowing it from a neighbor or yes, paying (monetary or through favors) someone to do it. Nothing wrong with relying on society to a degree. If you want to be self reliant without having a lot of money to waste, you'll have to practice minimalism. Not the inner city hipster version of it, but being mindful of what the utility and value of all the things you have is.

lmm 7y ago
> If you want to be self reliant without having a lot of money to waste, you'll have to practice minimalism. Not the inner city hipster version of it, but being mindful of what the utility and value of all the things you have is. No you don't. A big pile of junk is no drain on your self-reliance; if you're living in the kind of place where you can even begin to hope to produce your own food then space is not going to be an issue.
- smoe 7y ago
  Its not about whether to have a pile of junk or not, but its utility. My fathers side of the family is all farmers for generations. They piled up a lot of junk and reused continously around the properties. But those weren't just random piles, but sorted and to a degree inventoried and cleaned so it can be used efficiently. They could e.g. plan ahead for new projects how much can be build from scrap vs new materials. Sure just throwing stuff on a pile doesnt cost you anything, but i dont see how you are going to reuse that stuff somewhat efficiently later without upfront assigning some value to different types of junk
ehnto 7y ago
The missing pieces of the conversation are "How self reliant?" and "Self-reliant from what?" Are you trying to be a homesteader, entirely off-grid and not reliant on society? Or are you trying to be financially self-reliant, not relying on a paycheck? Or are you trying to be personally less reliant on things and items? These are all different ideas that get wrapped up into this conversation, and like the OP said, they're not all compatible. If you want to be an off-grid homesteader, you're going to need a lot of tools, materials and skills. If you want to be less reliant on things, then you are going to have to be content with being able to do less. None of those things are bad, but the conversation is incomplete if we don't make clear what we're really talking about when we talking about self-reliance and minimalism.
- smoe 7y ago
  While I agree that pieces are missing for a full conversation, I disagree with the simplification that minimalism is mainly about wanting to be less reliant on things or just having less for the sake of having less. Minimalism is about having what is essential to a fulfill a certain need or goal. What is essential varies from person to person and of course is vastly different whatever we are talking about a software engineer living in a city apartment vs. a farmer. So I see minimalism being about prioritization. During "normal" circumstances it is pretty much purely voluntary, but the more self reliant you want to be, the more it becomes a necessity. With limited resources you have to prioritize what tools, skills and materials you acquire in what order, quality and quantity. You end up with good enough, minimal solutions for a lot of the problems. My farmer grand parents where 10x the minimalists I ever was in my view. But for them, it was just how they grew up, not a lifestyle choice about aesthetics.
  - DubiousPusher 7y ago
    > You end up with good enough, minimal solutions for a lot of the problems. This is what I mean by poverty. Most people who are ingenious live a balance of self reliance, minimalism (usually due to lack of money) and poverty. By poverty I do not mean that taking one step into self reliance makes you instantly impoverished but it frequently means doing without some luxury or need fullfiled that people are accustomed to. It usually comes in the form of "making do".

by smoe 7y ago

lmm 7y ago

> If you want to be self reliant without having a lot of money to waste, you'll have to practice minimalism. Not the inner city hipster version of it, but being mindful of what the utility and value of all the things you have is. No you don't. A big pile of junk is no drain on your self-reliance; if you're living in the kind of place where you can even begin to hope to produce your own food then space is not going to be an issue.

smoe 7y ago
Its not about whether to have a pile of junk or not, but its utility. My fathers side of the family is all farmers for generations. They piled up a lot of junk and reused continously around the properties. But those weren't just random piles, but sorted and to a degree inventoried and cleaned so it can be used efficiently. They could e.g. plan ahead for new projects how much can be build from scrap vs new materials. Sure just throwing stuff on a pile doesnt cost you anything, but i dont see how you are going to reuse that stuff somewhat efficiently later without upfront assigning some value to different types of junk

ehnto 7y ago

The missing pieces of the conversation are "How self reliant?" and "Self-reliant from what?" Are you trying to be a homesteader, entirely off-grid and not reliant on society? Or are you trying to be financially self-reliant, not relying on a paycheck? Or are you trying to be personally less reliant on things and items? These are all different ideas that get wrapped up into this conversation, and like the OP said, they're not all compatible. If you want to be an off-grid homesteader, you're going to need a lot of tools, materials and skills. If you want to be less reliant on things, then you are going to have to be content with being able to do less. None of those things are bad, but the conversation is incomplete if we don't make clear what we're really talking about when we talking about self-reliance and minimalism.

smoe 7y ago
While I agree that pieces are missing for a full conversation, I disagree with the simplification that minimalism is mainly about wanting to be less reliant on things or just having less for the sake of having less. Minimalism is about having what is essential to a fulfill a certain need or goal. What is essential varies from person to person and of course is vastly different whatever we are talking about a software engineer living in a city apartment vs. a farmer. So I see minimalism being about prioritization. During "normal" circumstances it is pretty much purely voluntary, but the more self reliant you want to be, the more it becomes a necessity. With limited resources you have to prioritize what tools, skills and materials you acquire in what order, quality and quantity. You end up with good enough, minimal solutions for a lot of the problems. My farmer grand parents where 10x the minimalists I ever was in my view. But for them, it was just how they grew up, not a lifestyle choice about aesthetics.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  > You end up with good enough, minimal solutions for a lot of the problems. This is what I mean by poverty. Most people who are ingenious live a balance of self reliance, minimalism (usually due to lack of money) and poverty. By poverty I do not mean that taking one step into self reliance makes you instantly impoverished but it frequently means doing without some luxury or need fullfiled that people are accustomed to. It usually comes in the form of "making do".