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.
> I don't own much physically. I spend my days volunteering and traveling living a pretty simple life.
That's the nub - you don't live a simple life, you live a very complicated life where the "stuff" in your life has been abstracted out of sight.
To define ownership by physical possession is utterly facile. The economic decisions you make result in great mountains of "stuff" being made and used and consumed. You haven't structured your life to have less "stuff" in it, only that you avoid having to carry it.
Aviation fuel is stuff. It has mass and volume, it smells and tastes of something. Huge facilities have been built to extract and refine it, and vast areas of land and sea have been irrevocably damaged by that process. Very real, physical wars were fought over it. Your plane ticket is a stake in all of that, a fractional ownership of the machinery that puts a plane in the air.
Viewed from inside your head, your life seems minimal. But from a bird's eye, it looks like a bulldozer on the rampage.
This community is one of hackers, people who strive to look more deeply, to understand how things work at the most fundamental level. If we do not understand the deep impact of the things we consume and the lives we lead, who else?
tl;dr -- Parent said, essentially "I could own 15 things too if I were allowed to go shopping once a week (because of a vast, costly infrastructure in place to support that)", and that this is not Minimalism but merely shifting the impact of your demand. You responded to none of that.
The parent comment made some really good points. You papered over them with a straw man argument about the "immigrant army," then you shrugged your shoulders and said "meh", and there's also a hint of New Age silliness in there (Questioning a person's sense of "what is possible" is a silly way to claim the moral high ground. It's the New Age way to say "oh, you must not understand art".)
The original comment was that you are able to maintain a footprint of the same magnitude as you had before by simply living life "on demand" as it were, instead of storing stuff. If you really want to tout this lifestyle as minimalist, post your credit card statement so someone can fairly consider the actual cost of living this way.
In fact, parent alluded to another point that I would enunciate here: from the definition of Minimalism that says you actually have to reduce your impact -- a person who owns all of those things you don't, but doesn't eat meat, is more of a Minimalist than what you've laid out here.
Sorry to be harsh, I often don't take the time to clean up my comments after I've written them, to filter the wrath.
Tom Brown claimed (I'm not sure of it's validity, but let's say it's true) that he walked into a forest one day with nothing but clothes on and a Knife and walked out several years later feeling fine. THAT is minimalism.
Anyway, I don't think that this commenter is 'angry', he just doesn't feel like what your doing is really all that minimalist because you don't kill/grow your own food. Of course I'm not really sure I agree with him. You are minimalist in some ways and not others. I don't really see what's wrong with that.
I think the original post is good feedback for you.
Your angle might be that you can save time and be happier by owning fewer things? That's good advice. As an innovator, you've offered advice that can help other innovators with our first-world problems finding happiness.
There's some anger in the response, yes. But you are being made an example of. There's still a life of privilege in the way you're living, that probably you'd be happy to acknowledge. There's also some things that might not care about that others do - like carbon footprint, modern consumerism, money inequities, vegetarianism, etc. Or maybe you do care about those things too.
What's the point of minimalism if not to reduce one's impact on the world? Am I understanding this "movement" incorrectly?
From one perspective, reducing your greater impact on the world by some amount seems to at least be routed in a desire to improve things - to make a nobel idea a reality as much as possible. Whether or not the overall impact is measurable is countered by the nobel gesture of the person at least.
From another perspective however, simply reducing the number of "possessions" one has to a ridiculously small amount by offloading the benefit provided by having said possessions to other segments - in essence, renting everything - doesn't seem to have much of a purpose at all beyond being slightly inconvenient. While I highly doubt anybody can only "own" 15 things - no, underwear cannot be excluded, even if you don't wear them more than once - whether the low bound is 15, 30, 75 or 200 seems rather irrelevant. As such, I'm not sure of the point.
Personally, I'd read deeply into some of the other very intelligent comments here. Ignore any perceived anger, because I don't think it exists.
I wouldn't stress it too much. Sustainability extremists will make you feel guilty for eating a diet of wild berries -- you're pillaging the bird's food.
It sounds like a pretty cool adventure that you're having. My first reaction was "15 possessions and no pan?", but I can understand that in context of the travelling that you're doing.
I was just telling my son that a Buddhist monk is only allowed to own 4 kinds of items, not necessarily 4 items. Nowadays when people think they need to "own" things to be happy, hopefully it serves as a call to others that it is not only possible, but liberating.
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?
I think the cumulative value of all the resources ever paid for by many subsistence farmers or others considered "poor" on a world scale probably wouldn't add up to the cost of the MacBook Pro in Andrew's laptop. I believe his demands on infrastructure may be a little more too. So are mine.
Of course Andrew's claim to minimalism is only relative to most people in the developed world. But there are tens of thousands of twentysomethings from developed countries travelling the world for extended periods of time with a similar amount of luggage (Most of us spend a bit more on clothes and a bit less on laptops; guess it depends on whether you prefer the inconvenience of laundry or Windows!) It seems to be as mandatory as national service for youthful Australians (and a mandatory experience after national service for Israelis). The secret about life on the road being fun got out a while ago.
It's not Andrew's fault, of course, if news coverage tries to turn him into some sort of innovator he's perhaps never claimed to be.
Hidden complexity isn't minimalism. True minimalism demands fundamental simplicity. Minimalism makes the truth of a product, a process or a place more obvious, rather than obfuscating it behind white melamine. The actuality of less.
Minimalist lifestyle choices are those that positively simplify, that meaningfully reduce the total impact of our lives. Eating soy rather than beef, eating local strawberries in June rather than air-freighted strawberries in December. Insulation over of heating, two wheels over four. Measuring the size of your lifestyle in kilowatt-hours and hectares and litres.
I think you're right about words describing styles being flexible but wrong given the amount of flexibility you expect and the examples you've given. Minimalism, in every example I can think of, has a context. What you've described is a minimalist percussion exhibition and a minimalist recording. If you asked some people to describe those two things I expect you would get some similar thoughts. The focus is on the recording and not the location of the recording. The studio would not be a focus on whether the recording was or was not minimalist.
But there are assumptions, context, about lifestyle minimalism that the minimalism supports some goal to minimize consumption with an eye toward "the things we own end up owning us" and to keep their footprint small. The gp notes that the subject of the article has not actually done that, he's just pushed consumption off onto other people and businesses. An example you asked for of someone who lives minimalistically is a myth I heard as a kid about people who could fit everything into their VW Bug and be on their way.
I guess I don't think you're wrong so much as right but the gp's assumptions are common and more accurate to how minimalism is usually thought about.
Did you actually mean to say that traveling the world on an airplane with a backpack is not minimalist, but driving around the country in a classic VW Bug - a fossil-fueled vehicle which is considerably less efficient per passenger-mile than a passenger jet - is minimalist? That driving around on a publicly-funded, continuously-maintained network of asphalt doesn't constitute "pushing consumption off onto others"?
One eventually realizes that minimalism of any kind is a trick of the mind. Nothing is really simple, even things that aren't alive, and nothing really exists in isolation. A thing can be minimal only relative to something else, and only along a limited axis, and only so long as you don't think too deeply.
(Did I just say that Trio's classic "Da Da Da" has only one note? Oops, I lied, I didn't look deeply enough: The chorus has a background singer, and though she - it sounds like a she - is designed to be a minimalist background singer she does sing multiple notes, adding vital depth and texture and helping to make the chorus sound so awesome: It's a joke of a chorus, but it's so much more musically rich than the verse that it sounds like heaven when it arrives.)
By the example I do not mean driving around the country but keeping owned objects down to a manageable amount where moving easily is possible. But that will turn into an uninteresting side topic as -internet- discussion sometimes does. I have a habit of looking for ways for people to agree and what assumptions are causing disagreement. I believe I've accurately described your initial disagreement with detrich as a difference of assumptions about a definition. To me minimalism is keeping the number of chunks one has to consider low enough so up and moving to another city, by car or plane, is easy. (I can't find that Trio's song. But I'm not sure you mentioned it before either.)
>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.
Yes, OP is not responsible for the existence of the machine. But no, there is no real meaning to "minimalism" if you do not stop pulling on the machine's demand lever. Parent comment is questioning whether OP has actually done that, or if he's not simply made his demand less visible (consumer vanity).
This is off-topic, but, if as a society the goal were to put less stress on resources there are two alternatives: either individually consume less or, have fewer consumers. Neither alternative seems compatible with the prevalent economic model --see Japan's stagnation in a nation which is neither growing its population and where the current population has decreased its 'consumerism'. Still, ZPG or near ZPG seems to be in disfavor as a way to ease pressure on resources.
With regard to the OP. it would seem, at least marginally, relying on the machine rather than on personal ownership is more resource efficient.
And, yes, as others pointed out, minimalism, is a pretty malleable term.
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?
I think his approach to minimalism is kind of unique. He's essentially saying, "Cut all the unnecessary choices out of my life." The last paragraph sums it up nicely:
> Minimalism is equally easy as it is boring to do. What shirt today? The one I didn’t wear yesterday. “How tough is it for you?” You mean, to pick the shirt I didn’t wear yesterday? Once you get used to simplicity, the complex normality others have becomes the audacious thing.
However, don't get upset when someone calls him on his anti-ownership bullshit. He still owns things; he's just shoving the energy of owning things on to someone else.
I think owning less things is a good goal to have, but not the way he's approaching it. It should be spending less money on things, not spending more money on disposable things so you can technically say you don't own a lot.
My brother, currently running a non-profit abroad, utilizes a similar lifestyle. Everything he owns he can fit into his small backpack.
I learned a ton from him about the benefits of mobility--something I would have thought the lean, mobile startup crowd here on HN would've related to more.
Attachments--to belongings or business plans are a source of strength but are also over emphasized. I admire what you've done and think we could use a lot more of it.
He juxtaposes his "minimalism" with being an "overconsumer". His words, not mine.
That makes him a bit of a douchebag who deserves to be called out on his bullshit minimalism claim, not just someone who's just "experimenting and learning". He consumes way more resources than most people on this planet, including most Westerners. By what insane standard is that minimalist?
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.
And intolerant as well. Let the guy live like this, if he wants, and write about it. Why are HNers feeling so attacked by that?
He's not claiming that everyone else is doing it wrong, is he? Even though I like owning stuff and wouldn't give it up easily, I find his idea of minimization intruiging.
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..
How much of that stuff is locally produced? Your post is admirable but reminds me of someone I know who buys disposable bamboo plates instead of paper plates to be eco-friendly, discounting that they're produced and shipped from halfway across the earth.
hahah. good question. i live in san francisco, so i'm very lucky to have access to local organic farmer markets almost everyday. to answer your question: almost all of it...hopefully. besides the superfoods ( spirulina, cacao, maca powder, etc.)
i shop at rainbow grocery for produce, which most of what they have is local. it's more expensive, but worth it. i support local first.
not to rant: but coming from a lebanese culture and giving up food i love (meat, dairy) to be more eco, and of course, have optimum nutrition has been the best decision i've ever made in my life. no joke. i think/hope one day, more people will start to convert to plant based diets, as they will see the the truth in the data.
The linked article says he ate a cheesestake and the author in the comments described how he didn't want to eat the bread so he got the meat on a piece of paper on top on the bread.
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)
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
Absolutely... the spirit of reducing waste and consumerism is admirable, but this guy is being ridiculous by claiming that he only owns "15 things". Not only is he missing the point, but his hyperbole is out of control. A toiletry kit is 1 item? Right.
Actually, the OP provides a fairly insightful definition of "item":
I count my things as resellable items I would be pissed if someone took.
By this definition an "item" is "one emotional connection to an object", not merely an object itself.
Yes, this means that the guy carries around many more physical objects than he counts as "items". This seems emotionally healthy, though, if one can afford it. And affording it is easier than ever: This is not the 18th century, and underwear is so cheap that, were a pair to be stolen, you're out the cost of a cup of coffee.
(By his own definition, I wonder whether the OP really "owns" a toiletry kit. Even a moderately fancy toiletry kit is worth maybe twenty bucks and can be replaced in ten minutes at any drugstore. And they're certainly not resellable. So I tend to suspect the OP's toiletry kit appears in this list mainly for branding purposes: He doesn't want to give readers the impression that his style of minimalism involves never taking a bath. ;) And he doesn't want to get into a lengthy debate over underwear and soap: As he makes clear in the rest of the post, his goal in life is not to ever think or worry about underwear or soap.)
By this definition an "item" is "one emotional connection to an object", not merely an object itself.
This would be a pretty odd definition of an "item". Going with this definition though, I (and suspect quite a few others) don't have more than 1-2 "items", or even any at all. I can't think of a single (physical) object I have emotional connection to, as long as I am reimbursed so that I can replace it it's business as usual.
You may find it quite alien, or perhaps hilarious, or both, but I've met quite a few people on the hoarding spectrum, and it is decidedly not fun.
And I'd venture to say that most people have something with significant emotional resonance that they'd be loath to lose it. A wedding ring. Objects inherited from one's late grandparents. A few pieces of custom-built tools, furniture, or clothing that fit you perfectly.
I think the truth is somewhere between the two hyperboles. Gram Hill's minimalism as an overriding cause is taken to completely silly extremes. However, the principle of getting rid of shit you don't need (and better yet, not buying shit you don't need in the first place) is quite sound.
As the OP more-or-less says, the best part of getting rid of things is eliminating your emotional attachment to the things, not eliminating the things themselves.
Having only fifteen things is, indeed, a pain unless you're a backpacker or a gypsy. But having an emotional attachment to a very limited number of things is an excellent goal. Then the other N thousand objects in your life are free to be acquired and discarded dispassionately, as your needs and goals dictate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Though Andrew is not a perfect minimalist, there are things that we can learn from him. He has a angle on using minimal stuff and they are pretty much valid. Shopping for fun is a plague in US and increasingly so in the rest of the world too.
Here in the bay area, we were given free BART tickets [at the BART stations!] to shop during the holiday season. The kind of minimalism that Andrew has written about needs to be approached from that angle. Of course there is travel, non vegetarian food, use-n-throw things and so on that we need to fix. But this is a step in the right direction.
Btw,
Why do we need to be hyper critics here on HN?
The blog was posted on his own site. Not directly on HN. There is no attention seeking in it. I learn a lot from the comments of each post in HN. The information is great and often eye-opening. I just hope the tone of a comment doesn't fend off its readers.
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.
In May 2011 I sold nearly everything I owned and traveled for 6 months with just a small backpack. My list was similar to Andrew's with a few more clothing items.
I should write a blog post but DL;DR version is that it was well worth it. I don't want to live that way continuously but it made me think a lot more about consumerism.
For the most part I lived in hostels and cooked my own food. My living expenses stayed about the same since I wasn't paying rent or maintaining a car.
The biggest problem with owning so few items is convenience. You sacrifice the convenience of doing laundry once a week (or less) and having everything you need at hand.
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.
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.
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.
Whenever preparing to travel, I always try to allay my wife's "maybe I forgot something!" fears by asking "got passport? credit card? yes? then we're ready to go."
It's really really weird to me that someone who wants to own as few things as possible (i.e. be unmaterialistic) is so focused on brands. (which to me is the height of materialism owning/valuing/recognizing something for it's label rather than substance).
Seems like it's just a gimmick, something to fill blog posts with.
Brands are often a nice shortcut to find a quality item. I was researching a coat for a woman the other day and was looking at a fancy brand one vs. a knockoff. After reading all the reviews it turned out the brand one was much more fitted (shows off your form, not a shapeless box) and had a better closure mechanism (a series of snaps at the bottom below the zipper for closing it up when you are waiting at a bus or something). The brand one isn't competing on razor thin margins to be the cheapest version on the block, so they can spend more money on materials and design and the like. If you don't know clothes very well, it can be a shortcut to an actual, in person, feature by feature comparison in detail. This might mean being able to buy online, or only after visiting one store, instead of visiting a couple. At many income levels, it can make sense to spend money to save time.
To move out of my rented flat without having anywhere to go - besides hotels, I mean - I gave away most of my belongings and it amazed me watching how many items I owned which were sitting there consuming space.
Then, after leaving my country with just hand luggage, I've been living minimalistic for the last two months. Yes, it can be done, but it's either time-consuming or expensive, depending on how much you are going to outsource. I have to wash my laundry by hand each other day instead of once a week, and lacking many kitchen items means I spend more time preparing my meals.
There is a trade-off to be made between space and time. When you see someone who's consuming little space, it may be that they are consuming either a lot of time or a lot of money.
EDIT: Thus, don't feel uncomfortable about owning a lot of things. If you feel so inclined, feel uncomfortable about owning things you don't use. For those who haven't read PG's essay about this issue, which played a part in making me superfluous-aware: http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html
There's well over 15 things in the picture. Not shown: toothbrush, soap, wash linens, contacts fluid, deodorant, etc. This seems like vanity over minimalism/utility, much like the EDC "every day carry" crowd with their $150 flashlights and $50 pens.
Well first he has one more thing of value in addition to those mentioned.
He owns andrewhy.de domain name which has links and traffic.
And he can sell that because the traffic and links have value. According the the dubious compete.com numbers traffic spiked to about 25k visitors in Sept. of 2011. (It's less now.) According to alexa.com he has 351 sites linking in.
Oh one more thing.
What he is doing is known as a publicity stunt. I've done them and I know one when I see it.
my first thought was: "I bet three of them are macbook pros :)." seriously though...
Where are his toiletries? Stuff for the kitchen? more socks? everyday bag as opposed to that travelling one? a single book he's reading right now, or a reader like a kindle or whatever?
This guy doesnt't look like he's actually living with 15 things, which makes the point kind of moot. He doesn't even have a towel.
Let alone anything like a dress shoes.
I don't think it's possible to get ownership down to 15 things.
Each of the following is an absolutely minimal thing:
1) laptop
2) power adaptor for laptop
3) phone
4) power adapter for phone
5) toothbrush
6) toothpaste
7) underwear
8) underwear
9) underwear
10) pair of socks
11) pair of socks
12) pair of socks
13) shoes
14) jeans
15) jeans
16) everyday bag
17) towel
18) bodywash/shampoo/and shaving cream in one
19) which reminds me: razer BZZZZZZZT over the 15 :) and you're just getting around to being able to shave.
20) shirt
21) shirt
22) shirt
23) sweater
24) sweater
If you add some moisterizing cream and maybe a watch and blazer, maybe a second pair of shoes, you're pretty well set though to move to a new city. You don't need a wallet, that's why jeans have pockets. a belt wouldn't kill you either.
If you read the article it says he counts stuff like you were buying it at a store. Laptop and charger count as one item. He also said he only counts things he can resell for value so socks and underwear don't count either.
That's interesting, though it's hardly true that "this guy owns just 15 things", which is what the title says. Meanwhile, fuckit, I got an actual viable list down to eleven:
1) toothbrush
2) macbook
3) phone
4-5) charger for macbook, phone USB cable
6) some ID
7) jeans (you're going commando here)
8) shoes
9) heavy shirt/sweater type thing
10) a bag
And...
(laaa - that's angels singing) Credit card.
Bon voyage! You might want to buy a coat at the airport, and deoderant.
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.