5 ms·

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 contr

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?

tonyedgecombe 12y ago
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.
digi_owl 12y ago
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.
pitt1980 12y ago
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
- VLM 12y ago
  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.
  - pitt1980 12y ago
    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?
    - ZenoArrow 12y ago
      "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).
      - pitt1980 12y ago
        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
VLM 12y ago
"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.

tonyedgecombe 12y ago

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.

digi_owl 12y ago

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.

pitt1980 12y ago

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

VLM 12y ago
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.
- pitt1980 12y ago
  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?
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    "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).
    - pitt1980 12y ago
      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

VLM 12y ago

"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.