The hazards of too much stuff
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. When rich people present the idea that they’ve learned to live lightly as a paradoxical insight, they have the idea of wealth backwards. You can only have that kind of lightness through wealth."
Edit (additional thought): the privilege is the ability to move about as unencumbered as one pleases, (re)acquiring anything they need at their discretion.
Also, kids.
Dumb stuffoholic examples. I hate that I can't have more than 2 pairs of shoes. I need one dress pair for when I go to a wedding etc and I need one pair I can hike in, exercise in etc. I'd really prefer 2 or 3 more but there's no room.
I can't buy anything without throwing something away except software, ebooks... I'd prefer more computers (had 6 before this episode) all of which I used (Windows, OSX, & Linux). I run VMs on my laptop but the perf isn't there to be able to run various apps I'd like to run (games and other graphically intensive apps). Similarly I can't own an XBoxOne or PS4 as much as I would like to play.
Another interesting thing when preparing to do this and getting rid of lots of my stuff was just how much stuff is probably actually useful but only seldomly. An obvious sample might be a winter coat. You only need it in winter so it stays in storage for 9 months of the year. But, there's plenty of things I use less often. A paper cutter. A mac screw driver. A drill. An xacto knife. A hole punch. A pizza stone. A casserole dish. A printer. A scanner. I could list 1000s things. I don't know if having them is really having too much stuff. It seems rather it's semi freeing. If I want to make some crafts today I don't need several days of running around acquiring the stuff as I have it and can start immediately. If I want to cook something I most likely have all the utensils even if I only use them a couple of times a year. If I want to make something or repair something I have several drawers of tools.
So sure, we can have too much stuff (I had 44 pair of shoes of which I only ever used 5 or 6) but it's hard to say where the balance is.
I find I very rarely mind not having lots of things. I moved country a year or so ago, planned to spend around 10k at IKEA, ended up getting tired and leaving after spending 3. Planned to get all those little things I "need" on another big trip. I never went back. Apparently I didn't need that pizza cutter after all.
I suspect most of us have much more than we really need. I suspect most of us do just fine with that. Some people it can be an improvement to remove some clutter, others it doesn't really matter.
I'd love to live out of a suitcase again, it really sets your priorities straight when you have to choose what to remove when you "need" something new.
Out of curiosity, what do you do in winter? Follow summer? or simply get a larger suitcase? (re the jacket conundrum)
At the same time over time I did replace tons of stuff. Examples: Had to buy scissors, a tape dispenser, knives, pots and pans, lots of tools, serving dishes, cupcake sheets, cookie sheets, craft utensils, etc... All stuff I already had before I moved.
As for the jacket I've just been carrying it the last 19 months.
A plain old knife would be enough for cutting pizza, wouldn't it? But then again, I've used the same knife for unscrewing screws, with a 50/50 success rate.
I'm pretty sure the balance is 5 or 6, for the shoes anyway.
Dylan Moran on stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmkRR2oGUA
I now feel obligated to contribute more to the conversation than some YouTube videos.
I've been a kind of move-around-a-lot person for about 6 years now. I've lived in 4 cities. I guarantee you, if it's going to cost several thousand dollars to move your stuff, it's much easier to purge. I'm also glad that moving forced me to have a purge occasionally. I think you'd be surprised how many things you hold onto just in case. I've had a rare pang of lost nostalgia, but in general, I haven't missed anything.
Never did I think I would be interesting in house tidying, but her techniques are effective.
Others will suggest attacking the problem with logic: “Do you need this now? No? Get rid of it.” But stuffocation is as much a problem with our emotional attachment to things as it is to our evolutionary hardwiring. In my case I was finding it easier to find reasons not to keep something by doing what Mari suggests: take items into your hands and ask yourself if it actually brings you joy.
We donated a ton of clothes, and the best part was that afterwards I had a new appreciation for the clothes I kept -- like, "oh, I've got some really nice stuff and I hadn't realized it for a while, because there was so much clutter."
It might be largely due to the fact that her technique involves actually holding every item you own before you decide whether or not to keep it. And you end up keeping the stuff that matters to you _now_.
Why? So when you have something you don't want to get rid of for one sentimental reason or another, you can just take a few pictures of it for archival purposes, then toss it. Years later you can still look through the photos for a trip down memory lane.
I wonder whether the super rich of the 17-century wanted to acquire stuff as much as we do. They would have had the means to buy a lot, but would not have been exposed to as much marketing as us. I concede there would have been a lot less stuff to buy then.
I think a parallel between the "middle class" (in quotes as I am unsure that term makes much sense depending on the period) of a time gone by and our era makes more sense. For them, I'd say the issue of stockpiling stuff would've been less problematic. Perhaps a large supply of tools or other utilitarian objects, but beyond that nothing of excess. They didn't have Billy Mays back then to sell them "As Seen On TV" goods.
So the question is, were the super rich then as acquisitive as we are today? Were there rooms in their mansions filled with pointless things? Or were they surprisingly spartan by the standards of today?
I'm trying to figure out whether our insatiable appetite for more and more stuff is a modern thing, or whether it's always been there. And if it is largely a modern thing, what caused it? Non-stop advertising?
Your point about amassing wealth in the form of jewels etc. is a good one.
I'm hardly an expert, but from what I've read about the 18th century, the idea of filling your house with bric-a-brac and bibelots was very common - though probably more among the bourgeoisie than the aristocrats.
An example:
Victorian interior design was characterized by three words: gaudy, ornate and formidable. Following fashion, private and public rooms were stuffed with objets d’art, bric-a-brac, heavy velvet drapery, tables, chairs, paneled walls, Oriental rugs, potted plants, gilded reproductions of Louis XVI furniture—intricately carved, fragile sofas and chairs—Chinese ivory figures, German porcelain vases, ormolu clocks, and miniatures lined the fireplace mantle, the mantle itself shaded by heavy, ornamental fire-shades, and all was overlooked by wall to wall portraits and priceless paintings, richly framed in gold.
Advertising pushes us not only towards buying 'stuff', but towards buying disposable items, items with high margins built in, etc. I've seen tons of furniture adverts, but never one for antique solid wood furniture, or even its' modern equivalent. Always disposable tat.
Even luxury adverts are generally advertising disposables such as cars.
"Stuff" is very different when everything has to be handmade: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940950 That kind of sets an upper limit on how much you can have.
The "collector" instinct certainly predates the 20th century. A lot of our museums are built around the personal collections of rich individuals amassed in the 19th century when antiquarianism became popular.
Conspicuous consumption for competitive social purposes is hardly new either. The example that comes to mind is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_the_Cloth_of_Gold
Prior to C20th it was more common to acquire people, by hiring them into your retinue or domestic staff.
Alas, they don't always get it right: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1d3il7/so_i_ordered_a_...
More annoying are multiple layers of completely wasted plastic wrap. Or the notorious blister pack which is essentially designed to be _useless_ once opened.
Books piling up exert pressure to be read, but simply succumbing to the pressure to read them all might result in falling victim to what Einstein talked about:
"Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking."
I don't feel books piling up exerts any pressure to read them all. I have a lot of books I don't feel compelled to read, but find it beneficial to have ready for me to use whenever: reference books.
I also have a lot of books I already have read, and have no plans to reread, but will keep regardless, in case I ever need to refer to them to refresh my memory. As an example, I still occasionally will find reason to refer back to a book I read twenty years ago, to confirm something so that I can confidently cite it in a discussion I am having.
You don't own stuff your stuff owns you. That's why you need a larger home when you can't fit your stuff anymore. You also worry about your stuff, home burglary somebody taking it's, car some taking it or damaging it, dropping your phone or computer etc.
I also think that one of the many factors involved with the fall off of crime is that (the typical) stuff (found in a house) isn't worth as much anymore.
In 1990, a "nice" TV might have cost $1,000 (inflation adjusted, $1,800). Today, a fantastic TV costs $400.
The fall of crime is probably more about age demographics than anything else.
The entire contents of a typical flat I've inhabited would have a resale value of about one month's rent if sold for the best price possible.
If you went for just the big ticket items and sold them on the black market you'd likely get less than a week.
Tangible assets are becoming devalued compared to intangibles (rights to things rather than mere possession; homeownership, bank accounts, etcetera).
The central bank only wants you to save less. So you can either consume more, invest more or save in other currencies.
The effect on the environment largely comes down to government policies, such as carbon caps / taxes.
In fact, I've been pretty happy with this arrangement, so I don't really feel the need for anything more. It was easy to commit to, since I had deployed in the military with far less and when I would return, I would see a big pile of stuff that I didn't even miss.
I bet something like this is one day possible and it happens.
People hoard for the same reason they overeat. Because scarcity has been the rule until very recently. When scarcity hasn't been the rule for for a long time I think these things won't be a problem anymore.
;)
Personally, when I overeat it tends to be because the food just tastes too good and overwhelms my self control. It used to be the same with stuff ("that will be awesome, too!"). I've managed some success on both sides, but the idea that over-consumption is driven by scarcity only applies to a subset of the population.
edit: start time
A large community shed where we could all pool our stuff would make so much sense. But alas most communities are not organized to make this happen.