💾 Archived View for envs.net › ~kkernig › gemlog › 2020-12-10-other_minimalism.gmi captured on 2023-04-19 at 22:52:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-04)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In 2010, Dave Bruno published a book about owning no more than 100 "personal things". It became popular, recieved extensive media coverage, and brought minimalism to public attention, mostly as a "trend". Of course, the pursuit to own little existed before - see Diogenes the Cynic, 2300 years ago - but this "100 things challenge" was at least the first time I was confronted with such radical minimalism. I was around 15 at the time. I thought of it as an odd thing to do, because I never felt any discomfort with owning many things. I remember that my father was interested in it and we talked about this for a bit, but none of us discarded anything as a result.
The main reason Dave Bruno and many others took up this challenge was to "declutter" their lives; to be less distracted and mentally liberated. Some friends of mine are following a similar approach and readily give (or throw) away things which they don't need anymore. In many online communities where people discuss their computer/desk/stereo setups, the overwhelming ideal is to have everything as clean, tidy and minimal as possible. Screen(s), keyboard, mouse, possibly speakers on the desk, that's it. No cables lying around, no sheets of paper with notes, no dust, no pencils, no coffee-stained mugs, nothing to disturb the purity of the place. This approach mostly addresses the personal well-being, generally a good thing. It also pushes people to reflect on their material desires, and to mentally depend less on owning, which again is a good thing. However, it doesn't address something which has gained massive attention just recently: environmental impact.
For a long time, talk about minimalism was focusing on the beneficial mental effects of deliberate reduction, decelerating and decluttering by owning less. It's a philosophy and a lifestyle. Sometimes just a trend for upper- and middle-class people who want to shake off the burden of material wealth. But the looming climate catastrophe has made a different kind of minimalism an imperative for everyone: Consuming less.
Owning little does not necessarily cause you to buy less. On average, it probably still does, because if you're strict about it, you would have to decide which object the new one should replace, and it would evoke again the mental exercise of "Do I really need this?". But reduced consumption is rather a side affect than a cental point of the own-little approach. You can still spend a lot of money on novelty items if you don't keep them for very long. From an environmental point of view, it matters most to use as little resources as possible, by producing as little as possible, and doing so efficiently. This means that every person aware of the upcoming climate catastrophe should feel obliged to cut down consumption by buying less, and by buying long-lasting, repairable things. This is not an issue of personal well-being, but of saving the climate and a significant amount of life on this planet (which includes us).
My point now is that it's not so important to own little, but rather to throw away little, while at the same time being satisfied an thankful for what you have. I think this is a more feasible way to minimize consumption. Often, when I repair something, I am very happy to have kept that old half-broken "something" of which I can now take some parts. For years now I'm having an eye on electronic waste (both in private and at work) and collect cables, adapters and peripherals for computers, audio equipment and other electronic applications that were to be thrown away. These parts fill up a few boxes on top of my shelf and some space under my desk. I'm now happily supplying family and friends with these things whenever they need something.
To bring up a point Solderpunk has mentioned several times in his phlog: Nearly every object we own, especially (micro)electronics, is the result of an incredibly long, complex and resource-intensive production chain. All the effort put in the development and production is lost upon disposal, and even the best recycling methods can only extract some raw materials. Therefore, we should be much more reluctant to throw things away and carefully consider if an object could have a second or third use, possibly with some repair or modification done to it.
To summarize: The "owning little" approach of minimalism is certainly a step in the right direction, though it doesn't address the sustainability issue directly. I propose that it is easier to reduce cosumption if you allow yourself to accumulate objects for later use.