You might be surprised -- a minimalist mindset can extend toward computer habits as well. Also, just as he relies on society to provide him with essentials like food, so too could he rely on cloud providers like Google Docs to take care of his document storage -- though of course he would still own his Google account.
It's no stretch to compare Mimimalism to a thin-client computing design -- it is made possible by the existence of an excellent network of other person-nodes, and it reduces the emotional and physical "computational" overhead of owning things.
Also, in response to come other comments in this thread: to argue that he is parasitic requires the moral stance that using things you do not own is parasitic, regardless of the other contributions you make to society (including paying for the temporary use of those things!). Which is bollocks.
It's always interesting how people define what is a thing. He's got a good definition but he should take it a step further. Expand it to anything that you have that you would feel bad if you had to replace. The digital clutter weights on your mind just like physical objects (files on the macbook, email in gmail, all of it).
Also although he list the items that he'd be pissed if he lost he'd probably be a lot less angry them a lot of people if he was robbed. Simpler and cheaper to only have to replace 15 items.
I had a boss once who went on at great length about the benefits of the paperless office. His office was indeed devoid of paper storage, his secretary's office however, had loads of filing cabinets stuffed full of papers.
Self-regarding parasites like this just offload all their support systems onto other people and then brag about how minimal and self sufficient they are.
...and TVs for him to watch, food for him to eat, coffee makers for him to use...
Years ago I was pretty minimalist. I didn't want to own anything that I couldn't walk away from. So in my apartment I had a bed, a computer, a small TV, a surfboard, and a couple of plastic deck chairs to sit on.
Today I have quite a few more things in my house but my attitude towards what I own is still the same. That I think is what is important.
Yeah. Blind, random luck. It's not like he spent years building relationships with people and becoming the kind of guy that people like to have as a house guest.
So, perhaps you are against self-regarding people and braggarts and not necessarily minimalism?
There's no such thing as being self-sufficient. But, having ditched 90% of my possessions over the years, I have to say that removing all that material burden has felt damn great. One of the best things I've ever done.
That's exactly it - many 'minimalists' I know live just like this, but never have any money, always need a place to stay or a ride, never want to chip in at the nice restaurants because of point #1, and make it extremely uncomfortable for the rest of us 'consumerists.'
I get it, having less can be good, but not at the cost of friendships and a healthy lifestyle. Oh, and did I mention that many of these clothing items, which get re-used often, get nasty fast.
That's a good question. But such things go together with a certain lifestyle. For example, when you start having children, it becomes terribly hard to have such a lifestyle. Not only do they need toys and more clothes. But you will require a bigger house, a bigger house goes together with tools for fix stuff, etc.
The question is whether you should define minimalism quantitatively or qualitatively. Isn't minimalism to buy what you need to lead a reasonable life, rather than a race to have the lowers number of possessions? The minimum number depends on so many factors: family size, illnesses, hobbies (some people require only a GPS for hiking, others need a climbing gear), etc.
How extreme is it really? The guy has 15 things with resale value that he treasures. How many things to do you own that you use day in, day out that you treasure.
For me, discarding kitchen things and stuff needed to run a house (furniture, hoover, ironing board etc) I use / wear maybe 25 things frequently.
The main difference between that guy and most people is he chooses to sell / discard / not buy crap he doesn't need. Most people accumulate stuff and fill their attic with it.
I consider it a good thing when a person is extremely reasonable. Or extremely thoughtful. Or extremely honest. Or extremely patient. Or extremely gracious.
We don't need balance in all things. A rocket only makes it safely to the moon if the engineers are extremely cautious. Bill Gates is extremely charitable. Einstein was extremely intelligent.
The idea that "extreme X for any X" is bad is some sort of pseudo-wisdom that doesn't even pass the sniff test.
This is following two decades of Bill Gates being extremely selfish.
>Einstein was extremely intelligent.
This is something different. Einstein was extremely intelligent in some areas but not all of them.
It's been said that for anyone to become great at anything that it requires 10,000 hours of practice. This does take dedication and there is nothing wrong with doing what you love. That said, caring too much or being too emotional can affect rationalization.
Please. You think Bill Gates made $50 billion by stealing it? Yeah, he was agressive, but not any more so than Steve Jobs, Scott McNealy or Larry Ellison would have been in the same position.
Gates and his lieutenants are guilty of extortion rather than theft. "Nice OEM you got, a pity if something were to … happen to it." That wealth is an enormous market failure that the others were not sociopathic enough to cause.
Laptop charger, phone charger, money to own washing powder to wash clothes. "Toiletry kit" is a cheat, so add: razor, shaving foam, blades, toothpaste, toothbrush, towel, shampoo, shower gel, etc. etc. etc.
I'd disagree, simply because you could take that to the extreme. Does he own the water he drinks, the air he breathes, the life he lives through? As far as I can see, we're talking strictly in physical items.
We can take that further. If clumps of data that make up a "file" is a possession, what about the thousands of executable and library files that make up his operating system? He may not use the calculator or chess game, but his computer surely comes with that. What about every bit that make those up?
We need a clear line or this gets silly, and I think physical possessions is a clear enough line.
His definition of "I count my things as resellable items I would be pissed if someone took." would appear to cover email addresses and blog accounts etc. Maybe not much resale value, but anyone would be 'pissed' if their email account was taken.
He addressed that. Some "things" listed are a collection of parts which are pretty useless if incomplete.
Are we going to enumerate the mechanical components of the computer down to screws, connectors, etc - some of which he could arguably live without? no. At some point we consider a collection of things a single whole thing. A puzzle is moot without all the pieces. Within reason, he's expanding that to include separable components which are functionally useless without other items; a laptop and a charger are pretty useless without each other, to the point that we may as well consider them part of the same thing ... ditto the "toiletry kit", a small bag (well, mine is) containing consumables all of which I need to become presentable each morning, the unified totality of parts becoming apparent if I miss just one of those things for a couple days.
The other interesting & valid selection - or in this case rejection - of "things" are those which he does have but could do without (if inconveniently, like socks) which have zero, even negative, resale value.
It's not a cheat. It's coping with a practical analysis of the problem, defining usable viable limits where others may flippantly disagree.
Because a toiletry kit is a set of [consumable, replaceable] parts, used pretty much all at once (same 20-minute process every day), where each component is not often chosen over an equivalent. I'll go thru a half-dozen shirts throughout the week (and society will object if I stick to just one), but nobody will care if I use the same toothpaste/toothbrush/floss/razor/foam/shampoo/soap/washcloth every day for years (replaced only when used up, and then replaced with the same product).
We have a variety of clothes as separate objects, as they are interchangeable (society objects if I _don't_ swap 'em on a daily basis), and can get by without some because there are others present as replacements.
In support of your point, it's a matter of where the line is drawn as a practical application to the scenario. While the kit may be considered a unit wherein parts really are part of the same non-interchangeable application (well, at least for us Y-chromosome types) and for purposes of this example isn't broken down further, the reverse may be applied. Rather than a given shirt considered a single object, by defined convention it could be considered a part of a complete outfit. Having so few pieces to interchange - say, the dress shirt not an acceptable match to the swim shorts - he could reduce the total count by considering sandals/jeans/polo a single unit as none of that stuff much goes with anything else he has.
To wit: that's just where he drew the line between things forming a unit and things counted separate but used together.
Most Buddhist monks could easily get under the "15 things" limit-- the standard list of possessions is: three robes, an alms bowl, a cloth belt, a needle and thread, a razor for shaving the head, and a water filter.
Actually, according to the Buddhist monastic code they aren't allowed to have money. I know a very large number (probably the majority) of monks these days do accept money but I know of and have lived with those that don't. In the communities that respect the Vinaya[1] there are 227 rules that fully ordained monks are supposed to follow. Novices have ten rules[2] and one of them is not to handle money.
toothpaste and toothbrush are definitely medical then, as a dentist definitely is in the field of medicine, and if you don't use them your teeth rot and fall out. oral-B is definitely a medical brand. "warding off disease" simply and clearly covers this, then. Thanks for the informative link.
Curious that he doesn't mention "big bank balance" which makes life a lot more comfortable for him.
He needs food? He buys food. He needs emergency accommodation? (Because his friend's house burns down or some such) He can buy that accommodation for the nights he needs it.
Having just become homeless[1] myself (not through choice) I've whittled down my possessions to something that's easy to carry. Following his rules (stuff that'd be annoying to buy again) I have a computer; a games console; an mp3 player; some headphones; a kindle; one pair trousers.
I have more clothes, but they're easy to replace. The Kindle is odd - one item, with many books on it. But they are easy to replace. Personally, I think that's a flaw in his method.
By a more reasonable counting system I have money (not much, but much more than other people in similar situations in my country, and very very much more than people in other countries); I have the gadgets (and associated chargers / headphones / cases / bags / media / software); I have clothes.
[1] As I've mentioned it, take a look at this website.
It's aimed at people needing "social housing". (I don't; I have no idea why I was given that URL, maybe it's just the script they follow.) IT IS AN APPALLING WEBSITE, AND A DREADFUL FORM. From the broken security mixing secure and insecure stuff, to the weird form flow.
... to the 420k image of a 306k document. Firebug shows it as 1.1m, but headers say 420k. Oh, and the image is 'no-cache' so it'll reload on every page request from a server apparently running on a 64k ISDN line.
I'm not sure if Mr Hyde's definition of a personal possession was a (well-played) PR trick or simply a certain lack of accounting intuition. Which is a shame, because his putative balance sheet should be a fascinating thing to think about.
If we were to take a look at his assets and guess reasonable values for each category of asset, I wouldn't be surprised if all 15 items he listed (give or take his wallet and computer) ended up in a catch-all 1%-of-total-value "other assets" category.
In reality, Mr Hyde's own description of how he lives (and how he manages to get around with so few 'objects') suggests that the most valuable things he has, by far, are (and probably in that order): his contacts, his reputation, and his cash.
Close to these three, his clothes, iPod and sneakers, however annoying to replace he imagines them to be, should be next to meaningless.
If he can group things together like his 'toiletry kit', then I'll do the same with my clothes (though I have toiletries, too). Aside from my clothes, I have 10 books, a laptop and a cell phone. If we're going off of things I'd be pissed if someone stole then that'd be my MBA and all of my clothes...so I guess I kind of own two things.
Minimalism and 'getting rid of your possessions' has been one of those hot internet topics for as long as I can remember.
The trend I notice is that the articles preaching the extreme end of this are almost always written by 20-something bloggers who are so much happier now they're couch surfing the world care free rather than 'working 9-5 to pay for that TV'.
Obviously, there is a large truth in there. We all take only a few things on holiday with us and enjoy it. But sleeping on other peoples couches, using their kitchens, bathrooms and towels, and freelancing to get some money to your paypal account now and then isn't a particularly sustainable lifestyle.
I suspect if you came back in 10 years you'll see a different picture. If you want to think about having children or living a generally western lifestyle as opposed to a '3rd world' or really homeless lifestyle then there's a sensible balance point.
I believe rejecting materialism is about giving your energy, focus and love to your passions, your family, and enjoying the experiences life gives you over material things. Not blindly aiming to own 10 or 20 objects while you're basically renting or borrowing everything else to keep living in a western style. All things in moderation :)
Also, in 10 years you are 10 years behind on working experience and have a big hole on your CV with nothing much to show for but a couple of blog entries and tons of pictures. And I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.
That is the essence of what is really wrong with this effort. By focusing so much on living with just a few items, your life is still being ruled by materialism, just in a different end of the spectrum.
Someone mentioned monks, so take their teaching and aim for the middle road.
I suspect if you came back in 10 years you'll see a different picture. If you want to think about having children or living a generally western lifestyle as opposed to a '3rd world' or really homeless lifestyle then there's a sensible balance point.
There's no reason he couldn't continue to live a substantially minimalist lifestyle while adding a family. He could migrate into living on a sailboat, RV, or in a home considered tiny by Western (American, particularly) standards.
My own experience from living out of a max 20kg suitcase is that owning too few things forces you to think about things a lot more than you would like to. Do I keep this? What do I throw away instead? Where do I get this quickly if such and such event occurs? What's the cost of buying this versus keeping/transporting it. Who can I borrow this from? Am I bothering them too much if I borrow this again? Etc, etc.
My conclusion is that owning too much stuff increases complexity, but owning too little does too and it can be very expensive.
If, by leveraging Starbucks convenience, he can save/make more than $100/mo then it is minimalism. High mobility comes to mind; a traveling consultant might not be home enough to warrant owning a coffeemaker, and [in]convenience of a portable set (AeroPress + Hairo MiniMill) may be problematic.
While minimalism and survivalism have a great deal in common, they are not equals. Try living in a city with what a 3rd worlder does and it's a punishable offense (possession/use of large knife, firestarter, chickens, etc.).
Starbucks does add up, but I would say that it is minimalism (Especially if you are using it as an office)
From an individual's perspective, it is not minimalist, because now you will need to have an entire coffee shop in your life to obtain coffee. However, from a societal viewpoint, it is very minimalist, because now each person can share the means to produce coffee, thus consuming less: electricity, water (assuming most dump some out), coffee supplies/coffee, and coffee brewing equipment (really, we don't all need our own machine... well, I do. but that's why I am a capitalist)
Starbucks doesn't print a receipt unless you want one, and you are welcome to bring & fill your own mug there. You can even use your smartphone to pay.
Surely "very minimalist" would entail foregoing coffee altogether. It's a luxury, not a requirement, and not having coffee means that nobody needs the means to produce coffee at all.
If you prefer to buy your coffee pre-made, that's fine by me, but describing it as "minimalist" makes no sense to me at all.
I think you're reading this as "I am trying to do away with material things and spend less money." But, really, I think this example is "I live out of my backpack because I have money in the bank and it affords me great flexibility in my lifestyle."
Personally i use Starbucks as a personal office space, it's a lot cheaper than renting of buying an apartment with an extra bedroom.
Coffeeshops don't sell just coffee, they sell a workspace, convenience, wi-fi, etc. Now if one doesn't take advantage of all these other aspects of Starbucks then it doesn't make much sense to buy Starbucks, I agree.
I think the concept of not owning a coffeemaker and going to a coffee shop daily is both consumerism and minimalism. Why can't it be both?
Wouldn't there be huge efficiency gains (and minimalism) in a coffee shop having one large coffee machine, importing huge bags of coffee instead of tiny packages with loads of waste? Reusing 20 cups for 200 people instead of each person owning 5 cups?
Minimalism is a just a word which could have many contexts. Having a minimal number of possessions is minimalism. Having a sparsely decorated penthouse overlooking Central Park is minimalism. A black canvas on a white wall is minimalism. Living the life of a Buddhist monk is minimalist, although they too depend on an infrastructure to support them.
The guy is just writing about his choice to minimize possessions, not to live an empty life devoid of the benefits of modern society.
It's situational. Outside of a major emergency, taking an extra 15 seconds to get your cellphone, wallet, and key's would probably would probably be worth it, come home and your house is on fire just let it burn. Also, as long as the fire is contained in a single room simply closing the door can do a lot to save your home.
There are a bunch of comments that this guy actually owns more than 15 things, and that others cope with less, and he isn't in the 3rd world etc. All true; his system isn't as extreme as the headline would have you believe.
However, I see the takeaway is that he gets by with a lot less stuff than the average person in his demographic, and I think that is something to be applauded. I know I wouldn't relish doing it like he has, but it has made me think I could get by with less.
Not ridiculous at all, in context. It's all about marginal costs.
If owning something would require you to rent a room that you might otherwise not have to rent, its marginal cost could be hundreds of dollars per month.
There are portable coffeemakers for backpackers, but there's no such thing as lightweight portable coffee beans, and buying coffee beans in one-cup units on an as-needed basis is pretty expensive, in time if nothing else.
As for whether traveling constantly and renting all your stuff is "inefficient": Well, sure. But to be alive is to be inefficient. Dead people are maximally efficient. But they also aren't having any fun.
There's no prize for having lots of leftover money when you're dead. As they say, you can't take it with you.
Sure, for some of the things that may be true. However, he doesn't have a basement full of junk, kitchen cupboards full of slowly perishing food, or a car etc.; things that most people do and could do fine without. Whether or not this all balances out as an overall plus, I cannot fathom.
As I said - he isn't doing it perfectly, but he is doing some of it better. The main problem seems to be it is being oversold by him/the media.
Perhaps a closer analogy would be "If I was playing golf with you and I took 6 strokes for a hole, would you be offended if I called that a hole-in-one?"
I was promised something by the (outrageously) surprising claim in the headline and the article could not remotely keep up... and this was the first analogy that came to my mind - in both cases something was promised but then not fulfilled.
With hindsight, I can say it's not at all about the number, but more the mentality. I don't know about this guy, but so long as you find a hostel/apartment/friend with some basic cooking utensils and Internet, it's not too hard to keep your costs very low.
> but so long as you find a hostel/apartment/friend with some basic cooking utensils and Internet, it's not too hard to keep your costs very low.
Sorry to be nitpicking here, that "minimalism porn" thing is a completely new curiosity for me, but technically you just shift ownership and costs (by mooching) but you still take advantage of those things or services - which really isn't all that minimalistic at all.
If the 15 things were meant to keep you alive in a wilderness area for a couple of months then I'd find the whole thing a lot more interesting - living "minimally" in an urban environment with a healthy bank balance doesn't seem that much of a challenge.
I don't think people are after "a challenge" with this minimalist urban life style.
It just feels good to be free of stuff. At least for me it was one of the greatest periods of my life. Around 10 years ago, after a breakup with a girl I was living with, I got rid of most of my stuff, mainly kept a few clothes and things that I couldn't replace somehow like letters from my friends and photographs. But furniture, utensils, books, CDs, vinyls, all that I sold to thrift stores.
The feeling was awesome, being free from stuff and relationship. There was nothing challenging living that way. Only challenge was a decision to get rid of stuff (and her).
I would agree that there isn't much point having stuff that you don't use - but I like having stuff that lets me do activities easily when I want to (bike, skis, assorted mountain gear...). I don't feel a huge amount of attachment to these items as possessions - only for what they let me do.
When I wrote that post a year ago, I think you could definitely say I was mooching off my friend (living with him, using his cooking utensils, etc.).
But after that experience, I moved to an apartment in another city. It had almost no furnishing at the time. The only things I had to buy were an airbed and basic cooking supplies (pot, pan, nominal silverware) and I was able to live basically the same way again.
(Of course it helped that I was living in a place with great public transportation and lots of things to do. I also long ago replaced my books/music/movies/etc with digital versions, so I didn't have to carry anything but a hard drive for those.)
For what it's worth, I did not have the benefit of a large bank balance like the OP presumably did (I was fortunately debt-free, but had almost no money saved away). To maintain this lifestyle, I had no choice but to live frugally (thankfully, I never get tired of cheap home-cooked pasta).
It's not for everyone, but I like living this way. It really helps clarify what's important in your life and keeps me focused on my work.
196 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 325 ms ] threadIt's no stretch to compare Mimimalism to a thin-client computing design -- it is made possible by the existence of an excellent network of other person-nodes, and it reduces the emotional and physical "computational" overhead of owning things.
Also, in response to come other comments in this thread: to argue that he is parasitic requires the moral stance that using things you do not own is parasitic, regardless of the other contributions you make to society (including paying for the temporary use of those things!). Which is bollocks.
Also although he list the items that he'd be pissed if he lost he'd probably be a lot less angry them a lot of people if he was robbed. Simpler and cheaper to only have to replace 15 items.
Self-regarding parasites like this just offload all their support systems onto other people and then brag about how minimal and self sufficient they are.
I don’t have a permanent address
Alex Hillman let me crash on his couch
So basically: Homeless man has few possessions.
Years ago I was pretty minimalist. I didn't want to own anything that I couldn't walk away from. So in my apartment I had a bed, a computer, a small TV, a surfboard, and a couple of plastic deck chairs to sit on.
Today I have quite a few more things in my house but my attitude towards what I own is still the same. That I think is what is important.
There's no such thing as being self-sufficient. But, having ditched 90% of my possessions over the years, I have to say that removing all that material burden has felt damn great. One of the best things I've ever done.
I get it, having less can be good, but not at the cost of friendships and a healthy lifestyle. Oh, and did I mention that many of these clothing items, which get re-used often, get nasty fast.
An extreme of "something" is not good...
The question is whether you should define minimalism quantitatively or qualitatively. Isn't minimalism to buy what you need to lead a reasonable life, rather than a race to have the lowers number of possessions? The minimum number depends on so many factors: family size, illnesses, hobbies (some people require only a GPS for hiking, others need a climbing gear), etc.
For me, discarding kitchen things and stuff needed to run a house (furniture, hoover, ironing board etc) I use / wear maybe 25 things frequently.
The main difference between that guy and most people is he chooses to sell / discard / not buy crap he doesn't need. Most people accumulate stuff and fill their attic with it.
We don't need balance in all things. A rocket only makes it safely to the moon if the engineers are extremely cautious. Bill Gates is extremely charitable. Einstein was extremely intelligent.
The idea that "extreme X for any X" is bad is some sort of pseudo-wisdom that doesn't even pass the sniff test.
>Bill Gates is extremely charitable.
This is following two decades of Bill Gates being extremely selfish.
>Einstein was extremely intelligent.
This is something different. Einstein was extremely intelligent in some areas but not all of them.
It's been said that for anyone to become great at anything that it requires 10,000 hours of practice. This does take dedication and there is nothing wrong with doing what you love. That said, caring too much or being too emotional can affect rationalization.
... read article, guy owns more than 15 things.
New headling: "Guy reaches new heights of extreme minimalism by ignoring a bunch of the things that he owns".
But I guess it was a minimalist headline, so that was too long...?
He owns some music. He owns some movies. He owns lots of documents. et cetera.
We need a clear line or this gets silly, and I think physical possessions is a clear enough line.
Are we going to enumerate the mechanical components of the computer down to screws, connectors, etc - some of which he could arguably live without? no. At some point we consider a collection of things a single whole thing. A puzzle is moot without all the pieces. Within reason, he's expanding that to include separable components which are functionally useless without other items; a laptop and a charger are pretty useless without each other, to the point that we may as well consider them part of the same thing ... ditto the "toiletry kit", a small bag (well, mine is) containing consumables all of which I need to become presentable each morning, the unified totality of parts becoming apparent if I miss just one of those things for a couple days.
The other interesting & valid selection - or in this case rejection - of "things" are those which he does have but could do without (if inconveniently, like socks) which have zero, even negative, resale value.
It's not a cheat. It's coping with a practical analysis of the problem, defining usable viable limits where others may flippantly disagree.
We have a variety of clothes as separate objects, as they are interchangeable (society objects if I _don't_ swap 'em on a daily basis), and can get by without some because there are others present as replacements.
In support of your point, it's a matter of where the line is drawn as a practical application to the scenario. While the kit may be considered a unit wherein parts really are part of the same non-interchangeable application (well, at least for us Y-chromosome types) and for purposes of this example isn't broken down further, the reverse may be applied. Rather than a given shirt considered a single object, by defined convention it could be considered a part of a complete outfit. Having so few pieces to interchange - say, the dress shirt not an acceptable match to the swim shorts - he could reduce the total count by considering sandals/jeans/polo a single unit as none of that stuff much goes with anything else he has.
To wit: that's just where he drew the line between things forming a unit and things counted separate but used together.
[1]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/b...
[2]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/dasasila.html
I've heard this list other places too but don't have a source. The four requisites mentioned on that page are what I typically think of.
He needs food? He buys food. He needs emergency accommodation? (Because his friend's house burns down or some such) He can buy that accommodation for the nights he needs it.
Having just become homeless[1] myself (not through choice) I've whittled down my possessions to something that's easy to carry. Following his rules (stuff that'd be annoying to buy again) I have a computer; a games console; an mp3 player; some headphones; a kindle; one pair trousers.
I have more clothes, but they're easy to replace. The Kindle is odd - one item, with many books on it. But they are easy to replace. Personally, I think that's a flaw in his method.
By a more reasonable counting system I have money (not much, but much more than other people in similar situations in my country, and very very much more than people in other countries); I have the gadgets (and associated chargers / headphones / cases / bags / media / software); I have clothes.
[1] As I've mentioned it, take a look at this website.
(http://gloshomeseeker.co.uk)
It's aimed at people needing "social housing". (I don't; I have no idea why I was given that URL, maybe it's just the script they follow.) IT IS AN APPALLING WEBSITE, AND A DREADFUL FORM. From the broken security mixing secure and insecure stuff, to the weird form flow.
Yes, that's a pretty bad site. :/
If we were to take a look at his assets and guess reasonable values for each category of asset, I wouldn't be surprised if all 15 items he listed (give or take his wallet and computer) ended up in a catch-all 1%-of-total-value "other assets" category.
In reality, Mr Hyde's own description of how he lives (and how he manages to get around with so few 'objects') suggests that the most valuable things he has, by far, are (and probably in that order): his contacts, his reputation, and his cash.
Close to these three, his clothes, iPod and sneakers, however annoying to replace he imagines them to be, should be next to meaningless.
I've lived like this for 10 years.
Which isn't a bad thing.
Certain objects are worthwhile owning. I'm particularly fond of robots which decrease my need to do menial labour.
My washing machine and dishwasher saves me at least 30 minutes a day.
The trend I notice is that the articles preaching the extreme end of this are almost always written by 20-something bloggers who are so much happier now they're couch surfing the world care free rather than 'working 9-5 to pay for that TV'.
Obviously, there is a large truth in there. We all take only a few things on holiday with us and enjoy it. But sleeping on other peoples couches, using their kitchens, bathrooms and towels, and freelancing to get some money to your paypal account now and then isn't a particularly sustainable lifestyle.
I suspect if you came back in 10 years you'll see a different picture. If you want to think about having children or living a generally western lifestyle as opposed to a '3rd world' or really homeless lifestyle then there's a sensible balance point.
I believe rejecting materialism is about giving your energy, focus and love to your passions, your family, and enjoying the experiences life gives you over material things. Not blindly aiming to own 10 or 20 objects while you're basically renting or borrowing everything else to keep living in a western style. All things in moderation :)
That is the essence of what is really wrong with this effort. By focusing so much on living with just a few items, your life is still being ruled by materialism, just in a different end of the spectrum.
Someone mentioned monks, so take their teaching and aim for the middle road.
There's no reason he couldn't continue to live a substantially minimalist lifestyle while adding a family. He could migrate into living on a sailboat, RV, or in a home considered tiny by Western (American, particularly) standards.
You mean a British home?
All my tech needs are met by work , my furniture came with my (rented) house and my TV etc are mostly other peoples cast offs.
My conclusion is that owning too much stuff increases complexity, but owning too little does too and it can be very expensive.
Heck, almost everything not wearable or clothe related is Apple's.
It's consumerism.
Trying living with just what he has in a 3rd world country and it's minimalism.
While minimalism and survivalism have a great deal in common, they are not equals. Try living in a city with what a 3rd worlder does and it's a punishable offense (possession/use of large knife, firestarter, chickens, etc.).
From an individual's perspective, it is not minimalist, because now you will need to have an entire coffee shop in your life to obtain coffee. However, from a societal viewpoint, it is very minimalist, because now each person can share the means to produce coffee, thus consuming less: electricity, water (assuming most dump some out), coffee supplies/coffee, and coffee brewing equipment (really, we don't all need our own machine... well, I do. but that's why I am a capitalist)
If you prefer to buy your coffee pre-made, that's fine by me, but describing it as "minimalist" makes no sense to me at all.
Point being, these two things are orthogonal to one another.
Coffeeshops don't sell just coffee, they sell a workspace, convenience, wi-fi, etc. Now if one doesn't take advantage of all these other aspects of Starbucks then it doesn't make much sense to buy Starbucks, I agree.
Wouldn't there be huge efficiency gains (and minimalism) in a coffee shop having one large coffee machine, importing huge bags of coffee instead of tiny packages with loads of waste? Reusing 20 cups for 200 people instead of each person owning 5 cups?
3rd world countries have coffee shops btw...
The guy is just writing about his choice to minimize possessions, not to live an empty life devoid of the benefits of modern society.
"If your house was burning, what would you take with you? It's a conflict between what's practical, valuable and sentimental."
Nothing else matters in that context.
However, I see the takeaway is that he gets by with a lot less stuff than the average person in his demographic, and I think that is something to be applauded. I know I wouldn't relish doing it like he has, but it has made me think I could get by with less.
It's ridiculous to applaud the idea -of buying coffee at a restaurant every day instead of owning a coffee maker- as "doing with less"
If owning something would require you to rent a room that you might otherwise not have to rent, its marginal cost could be hundreds of dollars per month.
There are portable coffeemakers for backpackers, but there's no such thing as lightweight portable coffee beans, and buying coffee beans in one-cup units on an as-needed basis is pretty expensive, in time if nothing else.
As for whether traveling constantly and renting all your stuff is "inefficient": Well, sure. But to be alive is to be inefficient. Dead people are maximally efficient. But they also aren't having any fun.
There's no prize for having lots of leftover money when you're dead. As they say, you can't take it with you.
Except that he doesn't. He merely doesn't own the stuff that he uses/consumes.
As I said - he isn't doing it perfectly, but he is doing some of it better. The main problem seems to be it is being oversold by him/the media.
A sheepherder in Afghanistan might own a hundred items more than this guy, yet he lives a simpler life by any reasonable definition.
If I promise to give you 50 bucks for some software you wrote and then I only give you 10, you wouldn't be offended or complain, right?
I said somewhere in the comments that I was disqualified for the minimalist Olympics...
Hello from Colorado!
http://raviudeshi.com/2011/02/75-things
With hindsight, I can say it's not at all about the number, but more the mentality. I don't know about this guy, but so long as you find a hostel/apartment/friend with some basic cooking utensils and Internet, it's not too hard to keep your costs very low.
Sorry to be nitpicking here, that "minimalism porn" thing is a completely new curiosity for me, but technically you just shift ownership and costs (by mooching) but you still take advantage of those things or services - which really isn't all that minimalistic at all.
It just feels good to be free of stuff. At least for me it was one of the greatest periods of my life. Around 10 years ago, after a breakup with a girl I was living with, I got rid of most of my stuff, mainly kept a few clothes and things that I couldn't replace somehow like letters from my friends and photographs. But furniture, utensils, books, CDs, vinyls, all that I sold to thrift stores.
The feeling was awesome, being free from stuff and relationship. There was nothing challenging living that way. Only challenge was a decision to get rid of stuff (and her).
I would agree that there isn't much point having stuff that you don't use - but I like having stuff that lets me do activities easily when I want to (bike, skis, assorted mountain gear...). I don't feel a huge amount of attachment to these items as possessions - only for what they let me do.
But after that experience, I moved to an apartment in another city. It had almost no furnishing at the time. The only things I had to buy were an airbed and basic cooking supplies (pot, pan, nominal silverware) and I was able to live basically the same way again.
(Of course it helped that I was living in a place with great public transportation and lots of things to do. I also long ago replaced my books/music/movies/etc with digital versions, so I didn't have to carry anything but a hard drive for those.)
For what it's worth, I did not have the benefit of a large bank balance like the OP presumably did (I was fortunately debt-free, but had almost no money saved away). To maintain this lifestyle, I had no choice but to live frugally (thankfully, I never get tired of cheap home-cooked pasta).
It's not for everyone, but I like living this way. It really helps clarify what's important in your life and keeps me focused on my work.