This isn't minimalism in any sense of the word, it's just a consumerist vanity.
OP's 'minimalism' is sustained by a reliance upon huge amounts of infrastructure, most of it environmentally unsustainable. He doesn't carry stuff with him, but uses money to access what he needs. It's like claiming to be a minimalist because you own a second house where you keep all your stuff. OP outsources the burden of sustaining his lifestyle to people poorer and browner than himself.
He eats without pans and plates because he relies on an army of immigrant workers to cook for him and wash his dishes. He doesn't own bedsheets or a sweeping brush because an immigrant maid cleans his hotel rooms. I don't believe that such an economic relationship is necessarily immoral or exploitative, but it certainly isn't minimalist.
OP flew more miles in the summer of 2010 than most people fly in a lifetime. That's hundreds of kilos of Jet-A fuel, a substantial share of the fleet and fixed infrastructure, plus untold amounts of carbon (magnified manifold by being emitted at altitude). He eats meat, which has a vast footprint in terms of land, water and energy use. How minimal is a lifestyle that leads to irrevocable climate change? How minimal is a lifestyle that wastes good soy protein to raise beef cattle?
Real minimalists take less than their fair share, not more.
I don't see your point but feel all your anger. Not sure if I'm just catching it from another project, but it is odd to me that you default from a guy owning a few shirts to causing major economic injustices.
I don't own much physically. I spend my days volunteering and traveling living a pretty simple life. I write posts and sometimes people like and share them. This post was written in May of last year and reached HN today. I'm not trying to promote this much, I'm just doing something for me and sharing it on a bloggity.
The assumption that I'm just snapping my fingers to have an immigrant army at my beck and call is laughable. I couchsurf most nights. I've slept under overpasses. Not just swiping my credit card.
I flew more miles in 2010 than humanity did ~300 years ago. Times are a changing. I could fly around the world for the equivalent to a mortgage payment. What is excessive there? Do you default to negativity for anything related to what is possible?
I'm living a different life that almost everyone I know. Nothing jaw dropping or amazing here, just different, and treat it as such.
Minimalism, like most words describing styles, is a very flexible word. If I write a composition in which a single person plays a pair of water glasses with one drumstick, that's "minimalism". And if I employ a very expensive sound studio to record a famous pop song consisting of the simplest possible drum track, a sparse guitar riff, a one-note vocal part with occasional distortion, and a toy Casio organ, that's also "minimalism":
None of these forms of minimalism is more "real" than the others.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. At least the OP has provided a living example of his style of minimalism. Can you give us a living example of yours? Even poor people "use money to access what they need", eat meat, travel by bus, use shared public infrastructure, and hire immigrant workers. Even subsistence farmers do these things. Even ascetic Buddhist monks do these things. (They don't subsist entirely on oxygen, after all: They're supported by donations. Or, if you insist, they "outsource the burden of sustaining their lifestyle".)
So when you say the words "real minimalist", who am I supposed to see in my mind's eye? Could it be someone I've ever actually met?
>OP's 'minimalism' is sustained by a reliance upon huge amounts of infrastructure, most of it environmentally unsustainable.
That's true. On the other hand it's there. All that infrastructure wasn't installed for his use exclusively. So, yes, I agree he's just moving the ownership from personal to distributed corporate/community. It's somewhat comparable to playing lose with accounting rules and moving money into off-shore banks. But, even homeless people utilize what is out there for them to use -like shopping carts, fast food restaurants, etc. I'ts not as though they become wilderness foragers.
>OP outsources the burden of sustaining his lifestyle to people poorer and browner than himself.
That's a bit of unnecessary inflammatory dressing.
He (or someone else) could have easily done the same thing in China, or Finland or South Korea or Greece. Or, similarly, someone brown could have done similar. Not all browns over the world are destitute, as one might portray.
Wait a minute... haven't I been told that the solution to numerous environmental problems is to move more people into cities for the infrastructure sharing? Not necessarily told by you specifically, but certainly by others. Now moving into the city and using its infrastructure is unsustainable and selfish? (Excluding your flying point.)
Help me out here, how am I supposed to be saving the planet today again?
What's really interesting to me is the _deliberateness_ of the choices that Andrew is making: not whether those choices match some (given the debate over the term here) arbitrary definition of minimalism.
He's experimenting with a different lifestyle and what might come about by imposing artificial constraints upon himself which I think is really admirable.
Real minimalists take less than their fair share, not more.
Are you defining "fair share" as "median"? or as "takes less than what he produces, as defined by how much value others think he provides in terms of how much money they give him for his work"?
Much as you may dislike capitalism, and whatever flaws it has, it's the best system we have for identifying the value of some product or service: a thing is worth what someone else is willing to give for it. Expanding thereon, note that that thing (product or service) is probably worth _more_ because one can usually turn around and acquire/generate even more wealth with it.
OP writes a blog post. He acquires enough income somehow from it to pay for a seat on a cross-country flight. What he pays for that seat in turn nets not just enough to cover costs, but to turn a profit on that flight. That profit in turn allows employees & shareholders to buy [insert warm fuzzy life-enhancing goods/services here]. During said flight, he writes another post which will net an income enough to cover the next such cycle. Upshot? he buys a red-eye flight instead of paying for a bed (divided by however many nights he would own, but perhaps not use, said bed), "minimalizing" that bit of his life, and the world is better for it.
You may think it's "not fair" somehow, but you're not willing to put up the value-representing money to trump it. What's your "footprint"? and how might that be criticized? (say, by the "strip mining" of forest land for carrot farms.)
wow. way to put that in perspective. when you really think about it, it makes sense. i'm a raw vegan and feel like i am more of a minimalist than the OP and i own 100+ things.
at first when reading this article, i was imagining my life with only 15 items. then after reading jdietrich post, it made me think a little more..
i would say, i'm very eco-friendly and very aware of my actions. i would not say i'm a minimalist. nothing in my apt is unnatural. no toxic chemicals. from the soap, to the tooth-paste, all the way down to the cleaning products. i compost, recycle, etc..i bike everywhere, use a carshare service (citycarshare), etc etc..
What does eating meat and flying in planes have to do with limiting the number of items he carries with him? And how exactly do you infer that he relies on an poor, brown immigrant army to clean and cook for him?
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.
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.
... 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.
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.).
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."
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
In this picture as well as many other such collections, one thing that stands out to me is the fact that no one has any food. The idea put forth here is to keep in ones life only "absolutely necessary" things, ostensibly as a reaction to consumerism, but when creating lists of absolute necessities, somehow food and shelter do not make the cut. How is this possible?
My view is that this "reaction to consumerism" is actually a celebration of consumerism; consumerism boiled down to a pure extract. "Don't do anything for yourself, don't make anything for yourself, don't clean up for yourself: Buy and Throw Away Everything."
Some critics have described this lifestyle as parasitic, but I might also suggest "infantile." Someone who lives this way becomes less and less able to care for themself until... well, until they don't know how to make a cup of coffee! That's not extreme minimalism, it's extreme dependence.
Having been a "minimalism-addict", I've come to the conclusion that the best part is the act of getting rid of things, not the act of having few things.
Getting rid of junk is liberating; living with 15 things is just a pain in the ass.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My wife and I were were struck by something recently while standing at the checkout line at a Nike store, looking at a display case full of specialized, expensive, pedometers.
Not a one was a useful as the jogging app I have on my phone.
And when we're out jogging, I listen to music, or streaming radio...on my phone. And oh yeah, if it's late and I'm going through the local woods, my phone has an app that turns it into a flashlight.
And now suddenly a bit of enlightenment hit us. A modern smartphone replaces a great many discrete devices that we used to have to carry around, or at least store someplace:
Common uses for our phones:
1) A portable phone
2) A small portable computer
3) An address book (yes, I used to carry one around with my old non-smart phone)
4) A map book
5) A GPS
6) An mp3/music player
7) A radio (fm tuner, but more importantly streaming radio, flipping through global stations on my phone reminded my of being 9 with a shortwave receiver and picking up broadcasts of Voice of America going into Europe)
8) A flashlight
9) A pedometer
10) A portable book (actually a library)
11) A thumb drive
12) A portable translator
13) A portable gaming device
14) A camera
15) A videocamera
16) Alarm clock
17) Portable calculator
18) Barcode scanner
19) A wifi signal scanner
20) Portable movie player
21) Starbucks card
And a few others...
And suddenly all that junk is in one device, a backpack full of stuff.
Coming up this year they're going to be useful as credit cards, business cards, some have projectors on them, better optics and I can junk my binoculars, a decent way to hook up a keyboard and monitor (it can already act as it's own trackpad, oh I forgot to mention that, I can use it as a trackpad on my computer) and I can junk my laptop for 85% of what I do.
These aren't phones, these are some kind of sci-fi multi-tool. We're ending up in a measure of minimalism de facto just by having more versatile stuff.
So yeah, looking around my house, I could probably ditch a ton of stuff (I mean literally, I have several full bookshelves I could potentially replace) and not miss it.
A portable monitor, keyboard and battery for that monitor will take about as much space and weight as an ultrabook anyway. You'll probably shave off a pound & half an inch and get similar battery life at most. The closest thing I can think of that would be as portable as a phone would be something like a laser keyboard and a mini projector built into one.
This guy is clearly a professional attention whore. It's good to contrast him with "early retirement extreme" who lives in the RV in the East Bay who gets posted from time to time.
"15 things" isn't sustainable. It's fake minimalism. It's like saying you're a minimalist after your house burns down and you escape with nothing but your cell phone and credit card. He imposes a significantly higher load on the infrastructure around him (whether he pays for it, or just the kindness of friends letting hin crash on the couch).
In contrast, "East Bay RV" really has whittled down his life to just the things he needs.
[+] [-] jdietrich|14 years ago|reply
OP's 'minimalism' is sustained by a reliance upon huge amounts of infrastructure, most of it environmentally unsustainable. He doesn't carry stuff with him, but uses money to access what he needs. It's like claiming to be a minimalist because you own a second house where you keep all your stuff. OP outsources the burden of sustaining his lifestyle to people poorer and browner than himself.
He eats without pans and plates because he relies on an army of immigrant workers to cook for him and wash his dishes. He doesn't own bedsheets or a sweeping brush because an immigrant maid cleans his hotel rooms. I don't believe that such an economic relationship is necessarily immoral or exploitative, but it certainly isn't minimalist.
OP flew more miles in the summer of 2010 than most people fly in a lifetime. That's hundreds of kilos of Jet-A fuel, a substantial share of the fleet and fixed infrastructure, plus untold amounts of carbon (magnified manifold by being emitted at altitude). He eats meat, which has a vast footprint in terms of land, water and energy use. How minimal is a lifestyle that leads to irrevocable climate change? How minimal is a lifestyle that wastes good soy protein to raise beef cattle?
Real minimalists take less than their fair share, not more.
[+] [-] andrewhyde|14 years ago|reply
I don't see your point but feel all your anger. Not sure if I'm just catching it from another project, but it is odd to me that you default from a guy owning a few shirts to causing major economic injustices.
I don't own much physically. I spend my days volunteering and traveling living a pretty simple life. I write posts and sometimes people like and share them. This post was written in May of last year and reached HN today. I'm not trying to promote this much, I'm just doing something for me and sharing it on a bloggity.
The assumption that I'm just snapping my fingers to have an immigrant army at my beck and call is laughable. I couchsurf most nights. I've slept under overpasses. Not just swiping my credit card.
I flew more miles in 2010 than humanity did ~300 years ago. Times are a changing. I could fly around the world for the equivalent to a mortgage payment. What is excessive there? Do you default to negativity for anything related to what is possible?
I'm living a different life that almost everyone I know. Nothing jaw dropping or amazing here, just different, and treat it as such.
Hello from Colorado (this week).
[+] [-] mechanical_fish|14 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNYcviXK4rg&feature=relat...
And, of course, I can be a "minimalist composer" even while writing complex works for entire orchestras:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coolidge_Adams
None of these forms of minimalism is more "real" than the others.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. At least the OP has provided a living example of his style of minimalism. Can you give us a living example of yours? Even poor people "use money to access what they need", eat meat, travel by bus, use shared public infrastructure, and hire immigrant workers. Even subsistence farmers do these things. Even ascetic Buddhist monks do these things. (They don't subsist entirely on oxygen, after all: They're supported by donations. Or, if you insist, they "outsource the burden of sustaining their lifestyle".)
So when you say the words "real minimalist", who am I supposed to see in my mind's eye? Could it be someone I've ever actually met?
[+] [-] mc32|14 years ago|reply
That's true. On the other hand it's there. All that infrastructure wasn't installed for his use exclusively. So, yes, I agree he's just moving the ownership from personal to distributed corporate/community. It's somewhat comparable to playing lose with accounting rules and moving money into off-shore banks. But, even homeless people utilize what is out there for them to use -like shopping carts, fast food restaurants, etc. I'ts not as though they become wilderness foragers.
>OP outsources the burden of sustaining his lifestyle to people poorer and browner than himself.
That's a bit of unnecessary inflammatory dressing.
He (or someone else) could have easily done the same thing in China, or Finland or South Korea or Greece. Or, similarly, someone brown could have done similar. Not all browns over the world are destitute, as one might portray.
[+] [-] jerf|14 years ago|reply
Help me out here, how am I supposed to be saving the planet today again?
[+] [-] drumdance|14 years ago|reply
"Real minimalists?" What, is there like a club or something?
Unlike you, Andrew isn't engaging in a game of "shoulds" and "oughts." He's just experimenting with his lifestyle and learning from the process.
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|14 years ago|reply
He's experimenting with a different lifestyle and what might come about by imposing artificial constraints upon himself which I think is really admirable.
[+] [-] angrycoder|14 years ago|reply
Your post is at least keeping with the theme that has been prevalent over the past few days, HN is just mean now.
[+] [-] ctdonath|14 years ago|reply
Are you defining "fair share" as "median"? or as "takes less than what he produces, as defined by how much value others think he provides in terms of how much money they give him for his work"?
Much as you may dislike capitalism, and whatever flaws it has, it's the best system we have for identifying the value of some product or service: a thing is worth what someone else is willing to give for it. Expanding thereon, note that that thing (product or service) is probably worth _more_ because one can usually turn around and acquire/generate even more wealth with it.
OP writes a blog post. He acquires enough income somehow from it to pay for a seat on a cross-country flight. What he pays for that seat in turn nets not just enough to cover costs, but to turn a profit on that flight. That profit in turn allows employees & shareholders to buy [insert warm fuzzy life-enhancing goods/services here]. During said flight, he writes another post which will net an income enough to cover the next such cycle. Upshot? he buys a red-eye flight instead of paying for a bed (divided by however many nights he would own, but perhaps not use, said bed), "minimalizing" that bit of his life, and the world is better for it.
You may think it's "not fair" somehow, but you're not willing to put up the value-representing money to trump it. What's your "footprint"? and how might that be criticized? (say, by the "strip mining" of forest land for carrot farms.)
[+] [-] fady|14 years ago|reply
at first when reading this article, i was imagining my life with only 15 items. then after reading jdietrich post, it made me think a little more..
i would say, i'm very eco-friendly and very aware of my actions. i would not say i'm a minimalist. nothing in my apt is unnatural. no toxic chemicals. from the soap, to the tooth-paste, all the way down to the cleaning products. i compost, recycle, etc..i bike everywhere, use a carshare service (citycarshare), etc etc..
either way, interesting read.
[+] [-] damoncali|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j4kzejfd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Androsynth|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rufibarbatus|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mgkimsal|14 years ago|reply
Yes, that's a pretty bad site. :/
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
It's consumerism.
Trying living with just what he has in a 3rd world country and it's minimalism.
[+] [-] ctdonath|14 years ago|reply
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.).
[+] [-] bmj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrtron|14 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] tryitnow|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] readme|14 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aneth|14 years ago|reply
The guy is just writing about his choice to minimize possessions, not to live an empty life devoid of the benefits of modern society.
[+] [-] epo|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] waitwhat|14 years ago|reply
I don’t have a permanent address
Alex Hillman let me crash on his couch
So basically: Homeless man has few possessions.
[+] [-] ap22213|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nhangen|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|14 years ago|reply
My conclusion is that owning too much stuff increases complexity, but owning too little does too and it can be very expensive.
[+] [-] sequoia|14 years ago|reply
My view is that this "reaction to consumerism" is actually a celebration of consumerism; consumerism boiled down to a pure extract. "Don't do anything for yourself, don't make anything for yourself, don't clean up for yourself: Buy and Throw Away Everything."
Some critics have described this lifestyle as parasitic, but I might also suggest "infantile." Someone who lives this way becomes less and less able to care for themself until... well, until they don't know how to make a cup of coffee! That's not extreme minimalism, it's extreme dependence.
[+] [-] keiferski|14 years ago|reply
Getting rid of junk is liberating; living with 15 things is just a pain in the ass.
[+] [-] Alexx|14 years ago|reply
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 :)
[+] [-] gldalmaso|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] georgieporgie|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kahawe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michael_dorfman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkudeshi|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kennywinker|14 years ago|reply
... 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...?
[+] [-] jpiasetz|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] TomAnthony|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Avshalom|14 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] anamax|14 years ago|reply
Except that he doesn't. He merely doesn't own the stuff that he uses/consumes.
[+] [-] waitwhat|14 years ago|reply
"If your house was burning, what would you take with you? It's a conflict between what's practical, valuable and sentimental."
[+] [-] bane|14 years ago|reply
Not a one was a useful as the jogging app I have on my phone.
And when we're out jogging, I listen to music, or streaming radio...on my phone. And oh yeah, if it's late and I'm going through the local woods, my phone has an app that turns it into a flashlight.
And now suddenly a bit of enlightenment hit us. A modern smartphone replaces a great many discrete devices that we used to have to carry around, or at least store someplace:
Common uses for our phones:
1) A portable phone
2) A small portable computer
3) An address book (yes, I used to carry one around with my old non-smart phone)
4) A map book
5) A GPS
6) An mp3/music player
7) A radio (fm tuner, but more importantly streaming radio, flipping through global stations on my phone reminded my of being 9 with a shortwave receiver and picking up broadcasts of Voice of America going into Europe)
8) A flashlight
9) A pedometer
10) A portable book (actually a library)
11) A thumb drive
12) A portable translator
13) A portable gaming device
14) A camera
15) A videocamera
16) Alarm clock
17) Portable calculator
18) Barcode scanner
19) A wifi signal scanner
20) Portable movie player
21) Starbucks card
And a few others...
And suddenly all that junk is in one device, a backpack full of stuff.
Coming up this year they're going to be useful as credit cards, business cards, some have projectors on them, better optics and I can junk my binoculars, a decent way to hook up a keyboard and monitor (it can already act as it's own trackpad, oh I forgot to mention that, I can use it as a trackpad on my computer) and I can junk my laptop for 85% of what I do.
These aren't phones, these are some kind of sci-fi multi-tool. We're ending up in a measure of minimalism de facto just by having more versatile stuff.
So yeah, looking around my house, I could probably ditch a ton of stuff (I mean literally, I have several full bookshelves I could potentially replace) and not miss it.
[+] [-] mahyarm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewhyde|14 years ago|reply
The linked post up top is from May. Lots has changed since then.
Great discussion here. Always interesting how people look at the project.
[+] [-] kevinpet|14 years ago|reply
"15 things" isn't sustainable. It's fake minimalism. It's like saying you're a minimalist after your house burns down and you escape with nothing but your cell phone and credit card. He imposes a significantly higher load on the infrastructure around him (whether he pays for it, or just the kindness of friends letting hin crash on the couch).
In contrast, "East Bay RV" really has whittled down his life to just the things he needs.
[+] [-] giddas|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skbohra123|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dimitar|14 years ago|reply
Did I get it?