Articles like this make me really happy I am who I am. The fact that you need to sell most of your belongings and turn your apartment into a barren wasteland to be happy is no better than feeling like you need to buy things to be happy.
Agreed. Attachment to not owning things is exactly the same issue as attachment to owning things. All you're doing is completing some actions to avoid a certain feeling or outcome.
I went through a phase where I just donated anything I thought was a distraction to charity, solved a lot in the short term, was insignificant in the long term. Addressing the fact I was bored with my career and hadn't had a break in years solved a lot more.
I understand the spirit of what you are saying, I don't think I fully agree with it.
Beyond the self though, I think an attachment to not owning is more beneficial to humanity (I use the term broadly). Less consumption is simply more sustainable for our planet. That simple.
I agree with you on this point. Apart from a handful of items I live fairly lightly anyhow, and less consumption is essential.
I'd just rather see it executed as a rational and dispassionate decision than something motivated by anxiety or internal / social pressure, in those scenarios I often don't feel people can sustain it / they won't substitute with something else.
When thinking of a sustainable system I like the analogy made in Cradle To Cradle[1]: the cherry tree. A cherry tree produces food for animals and any blossoms and fruit that falls on the ground nourishes the soil. It produces more than it takes in, and nourishes it's environment.
When applying this to human civilization you can end up with sustainable factories for example [2].
This answer is exactly the reason I asked what does it mean.
Serious question: why keeping polar bear alive makes planet sustainable? Who kept dinosaurs alive? Or any other species which went extinct before we even were there? I think we vastly overestimate our influence on the earth (just compare total mass of humans to that of bacteria, not to mention plants) and our responsibility for it.
If human brings some alien seeds and the new plant starts to dominate the "locals" we see that human as criminal. Would winter or water do the same it's natural then.
We are not the children of nature. We are the part of nature, and the small one. Sure, we have an ability to reflect on our actions and inflict disproportional changes to environment, but still.
Just for some context. Fukushima nuclear disaster: nobody killed, 39 injured.
Japan earthquake and tsunami: more than 15 000 killed, more than 5000 injured, more than 7000 missing. The sentiment is still "get rid of nuclear, save the planet". Who is killing whom? Indian Ocean tsunami? Haiti earthquake?
George got it right: no matter what we do planet is here to stay, it is not going anywhere. We cannot in any way affect the sustainability of it. Only of our own lives.
"no matter what we do planet is here to stay, it is not going anywhere. We cannot in any way affect the sustainability of it"
The earth is undergoing one of the largest mass extinctions in its entire history. And it's largely humans' fault.
The eath is undergoing massive climate change. And it's largely humans' fault.
Humans are polluting their environment on an unprecedented scale. We are causing enormous losses in biodiversity. And this does not even begin to address the devastation that a large-scale nuclear war would cause -- something that's still a very real possibility.
Sure, Earth's geology will survive, as its surface is like the rind on an apple and it doesn't matter much to the Earth's interior what happens on the surface.. and we can barely affect the geology of the surface.
But we can and certainly do affect life on Earth. Sure, humans might have a hard time killing off all life, but we're doing a pretty good job killing off a good fraction of it. And yes, humans are a part of nature, but a particularly destructive part.
> How about just keeping the wild polar bears alive?
What makes you think that they're not doing well?
Currently, some populations are increasing while others are decreasing - the overall trend is slightly up. The latter is a bit of a change - we've had times when the trend was down.
The answer to why not is because it requires the expenditure of effort. Without a reason to do anything in either direction, not doing something is the logically correct response.
No. You're talking about the neutral case. I own no specialist plumbing tools, but as I'm not a plumber, it doesn't bother me either way.
I'm talking about the two other cases - I must own X to be in state Y, or I must not have X to be in state Y.
People set themselves up all sorts of artificial success milestones with stuff like this that are just as ineffective on either end of the scale.
My own anecdote. I had a TV, I decided it was a distraction and owning it distressed me enough that I gave it away. I now own a TV again, it's dusty and gets used once a month. Nothing inherently different about the TV in this case, I just matured enough to be able to balance and manage my time better, so now there's no particular attachment (in the case of the TV) to having it there or not.
The real question is - would you have been able to detach from your television distraction if you didn't have that time away from it?
Personally, I find that going through periods of scarcity provides unique benefits because it proves, without a reasonable doubt, that it's possible to do so. Once the possibility has been witnessed, it is easier to say no even when the object is directly in front of you.
I am currently trying to cut down my possessions (and sadly stressing a tad about it) so that they all fit reasonably in the back of my station wagon without overloading the suspension (I move once or twice a year). Would you consider that an artificial milestone?
Artificial milestones to proceeding with a plan or taking an action, you're describing a literal milestone of fitting everything in your car due to a practical need.
I was down to the point of it all fitting in the boot of a sedan but had no rhyme or reason to it at all, I was just acting out against a bunch of other stuff because I figured once I was done, I'd be "ready"
> If I don't own a TV and never even remember the fact that I don't have a TV, is that 'attachment'?
If you are compelled to blog about it incessantly and preach it as religion, yes. Otherwise, not really. The blog post is aimed at a certain type of people and mentality that personally drives me up the walls. The "minimalism"/paperless craze is one of the biggest at the moment.
Just like how not collecting stamps is as much of a hobby as collecting stamps? Ok, I am being silly, but not owning things is not the same as having an attachment to not owning things.
If you keep feeling good because you don't own a stamp collection, if you keep reminding your friends how great it is not to own a stamp collection, then you are attached to stamp collections, just in a reverse way.
I don't see your point. Can you expand on it a bit?
I live like the OP. I barely own anything and I avoid distractions like the plague (There are some I still fight to avoid at certain times... HN). The increased focus is liberating.
I would see needing to buy things as trying to fill a hole and ridding yourself of those things as trying to cure the issue. They may be rooted in the same problem, but are they really the same?
Not the GP, or the author of TFA, but my take on it is pretty simple: the problem is attachment. It's not our things that are the problem, but our attachment to them — the thing has somehow come to define us, or, more correctly: we've come to define ourselves, in however small a way, in terms of the thing. "I have a nice TV, so I'm somehow better", on some imaginary scale of better-ness.
The fact of the matter is, you have a TV. Period. Any notion of better-ness you have is a story you're telling yourself. There's no better or worse here. Stop telling yourself the story, or at least learn to recognize it as a story — let the TV be a TV — and you'll be amazed at how much you can simply enjoy watching TV when that's what you want to do, and walk away from it when you don't.
TFA is right in that experiences are what make us happy, but where he gets it wrong is by defining himself in antithesis to things. That's just as much a story, and just as much an external definition of self as, "I'm an awesome person because I have a really nice car," or, "I'm cool because I'm an Apple fanboi," or any other thing or set of things. He's become attached to, and identifies with, the absence of things; he's over-corrected.
Once you get over attachment, you can have things, or not have things, or whatever else you might want to do with them, without having some kind of complex about it — without that external thing somehow becoming definitive of who you are as a person. You realize that they're just things, and like everything else in this life, they're transient.
Now, be careful, and don't make the novice mistake of conflating "attachment" and "liking". I like my TV and my car and my computers and my books and all the rest of the crap I schlep along with me through this life quite a bit; I wouldn't have bought them if I didn't. But if I lost them tomorrow, it wouldn't change my identity — it wouldn't change me — a whit. I'm still exactly and only me, whatever that happens to be. It's life, and my experiences therein, that change me, and that can happen with or without things.
That "imaginary scale of better-ness" that you speak of is called happiness. At least, that's the scale on which I would find a difference between pushing around a $500 beat-to-shit Dodge Neon and cruising in a brand new BMW.
If you're driving a nice car, you worry less about it breaking down at an inconvenient time. You're probably also safer; as an extreme example, I believe one is less likely to be injured in an accident doing 120 in a Ferrari Enzo and wrapping it around a tree than doing the same at half the speed in a budget car. Having a nice AWD car affords you the opportunity to drive up to Tahoe for a snowboarding weekend without worrying about whether you will get stuck in the snow. If you've got a nice home with plenty of extra sleeping space, you have the opportunity to invite a bunch of friends to fly out for a weekend to party and have an awesome time. In all of these cases, the material things serve as tools by opening doors for you to have experiences. And aren't experiences the root of happiness?
Nice things are not better than average things because they are more expensive, they are better because they offer more opportunities for experiences. The ownership of things is not an end in and of itself, but a means to an end.
That said, I totally agree with your thesis: "the problem is attachment". I think the OP's article can be summed up in a sentence: He had unhealthy compulsions resulting from a factor, got rid of that factor, and was happier. That factor, for the author, being material possessions. Broadly presuming that everyone has the same unhealthy relationship to possessions is where his article fell apart for me.
If you're not already, it sounds like you'd be interested in the Buddhist philosophy which, at it's core, states that attachment is suffering and that removing said attachment is the path to liberation.
Sure, the point is that either way (either by compulsively buying things, or needing to purge down to the absolute bare necessities) you're allowing consumer goods to control you. Those of us who don't feel consumed by goods would gain nothing by purging of everything. I own all the things that the OP purged off in his need to cleanse, but, none of those ever get in the way of me going out.
My point is simply this: I read things like this all the time, and it makes me very happy that I don't feel compelled to control my belongings to be able to live a happy life.
"Paraplegics are often unhappy, but they are not unhappy all the time because they spend most of the time experiencing and thinking about other things than their disability. When we think of what it is like to be a paraplegic, or blind, or a lottery winner, or a resident of California we focus on the distinctive aspects of each of these conditions. The mismatch in the allocation of attention between thinking about a life condition and actually living it is the cause of the focusing illusion."
In other words, when you're reading how someone improved their life by paring down possessions, it may sound like they define themselves by compulsively purging possessions, but they probably don't. It just seems that way because all you're seeing while reading their writing is one aspect of their life. You are focusing your attention on only one of hundreds, if not thousands, of the author's opinions and life decisions.
One, stuff is a positive number. If your goal is to have less stuff to be happy, you can't get less than zero stuff. It's self-limiting. If your goal is to have more stuff, there is no limit. It's always possible to have more stuff.
Second, the OP seems to indicate that having stuff wasn't actually making him happy, which is an important distinction. Actually being happy is totally distinct from feeling like you will be happy if you buy more things.
If you are actually happy because you own things, then obviously you should stick with what works for you.
