I don't believe it. I do believe that many of these minimalists are slightly delusional.
They claim to not "own" things, but they are still using things. Sometimes that means greater consumption. Not owning a towel is cool, until you start drying yourself with paper towels at the gym (I saw this today). Not owning tools is cool, if you are rich/well-connected enough to find someone to fix all your stuff. I own a small mountain of tools, but also haven't had need of a professional plumber or carpenter is years. When my office chair or laptop breaks, I'm able to fix it myself. Reuse is better than recycling. Sometimes that means owning tools. (I carry a set of screwdrivers even in my laptop carry-on.)
And all the stuff in the OP looks far too new. It doesn't show much wear and tear. So either it isn't being used, or these things are being replaced too soon. I own many shirts. Some are shiny and new. I wear those when I want to look good. I have other shirts for daily use. Eventually the shiny ones become daily shirts. I own more shirts, but I consumer fewer because I find uses for shirts that a minimalist would throw away prematurely. That makes me the better minimalist because, over the years, I will consumer far fewer.
To some, the point of minimalism isn't about minimizing consumption - it's about minimizing the cognitive and emotional upkeep that comes with owning things. That mindset is compatible with buying new stuff more frequently if you shed the old.
I own a lot of tools too (I do pretty much all of my own car maintenance - including replacing the head gaskets (a 2 month project I wouldn't do again)), but I doubt that is more environmentally sustainable than hiring experts (with their own tools), and I'm not saving any money unless I count my own labor as "free".
If you working on that car meant that it wasn't scrapped, if the job you did for free was a job that a pro would charge more for than the car's value, then owning the tools to replace head gaskets is the more environmental approach. The energy needed to generate a new car from base metals is immense.
I guess we have to draw a line between those minimalists who want to just own fewer things for the zen of reduced clutter, and those who equate minimalism with efficiency or anti-consumerism. That's why the Amish still own and use modern tools. Their minimalism is more practical than ideological.
I'm not a minimalist for any moral reasons. I'm a minimalist because owning things stresses me out.
I could move to the other side of the world and carry all my belongings in a backpack. No storage, uhauls, etc. In fact, I have done it.
I could lose everything I own (apart from my laptop and phone) and it'd cost a few hundred bucks to replace. This happened when I got a horrible bedbug infestation in my backpack in Thailand. It was a bummer to have to start from scratch, but not really a big deal in the end.
Not sure what you're getting at with the tools comment. I have nothing that I would need tools to fix.
I guess it depends whether you define minimalist as someone who uses fewer resources (their own and other peoples'), or someone who keeps their item count down. I tend to fall into the first camp, and I find it really annoying when people claim to be being frugal when what they're really doing is pushing most of their living costs onto the people around them.
The other aspect, also, is that it's fine to live out of a backpack when you're single and have no dependents. Once you have other people relying on you, you need to maintain the resources to keep them covered as well as yourself.
Haha, it's amazing how new you can make your stuff look when you add a filter to it! Just to give you a snapshot, I wore my last dress shirt until my bare elbow was hanging out of a tear in the sleeve.
But yea, as others have mentioned, I am not 'minimalist' in the sense of reducing consumption. I am minimalist in the sense of reducing choices.
It feels like you're being too challenged by the notion of a minimalist to get the idea behind it.
I'm a minimalist by necessity - thrice now I've basically had to upend my life in the matter of a few weeks and start brand new elsewhere, and having that sort of threat lingering over you makes you really cautious to have a lot of things. But it also makes you care a lot about the things you own as well. I probably have more clothing than the author claims to have, but I also take pretty good care of it as best I can. I cycle through clothing probably a little less regularly than other people do, but just as anyone else might discard a shirt they haven't worn in a year or that doesn't fit right anymore, I will too -- I just try to get a little more out of it if I can.
I do agree that posts like this come off as challenges; they're "look at me!" posts showing off a little and it can read a bit pretentious, but I don't think there's a need to project flaws onto such a post or person. Once I got past the shock of getting rid of a bunch of things I held attachment to, it started to feel really nice. I just no longer had to worry about a lot of stuff that just sat around, I stopped fretting over money so much, I learned to be a lot more self-reliant and how to do without. I learned a lot more about home repair, about cooking, about sewing, and got healthier as I now walked everywhere.
It's not a panacea, and it's not a superior lifestyle or a magic way to be happy, it's just one way of looking at life. We really do live in an era when you can consolidate down, and being free of just so much stuff feels nice to me. Like you I believe in reuse - I've done the few repairs and replacements that were necessary for my 2012 Macbook Air, and prior to that I had a 2007 Macbook that I repaired until there just wasn't any modern software it could run. Cobblers are still plentiful and fairly priced where I live right now, so I fix my nice pairs of shoes instead of replacing them whenever I can. I carry a small screwdriver set that has been used for countless repairs as well.
It's not a contest, it's just sharing how one lives their life. I know that some people who are minimalists do it to show off - they do it because Jobs did it, or because Zuckerberg did it or because they never got past being 13 and watching Fight Club for the first time. But many people also just do it because they were tired of the clutter. They were tired of having to worry about where to put a bunch of stuff they don't need, what to do if they have to move, or just worrying about having shit that was important only because they spent money on it, not because they actually cared. My folks are like that - they have so much stuff in their house that they constantly complain about, but whenever we try to prep for a rummage sale or for deliveries to a second hand store, it's a battle over every last item, from the old beat up and perforated pots and pans to fake flowers from a floral arrangement side project that never got off the ground 15 years ago. Hundreds of porcelain figurines, several sets of fine dinner plates and cutlery for parties they never have, and the less said about my Mom's Christmas decoration collection the better.
For me, it's just nice to not have to worry about 'what am I going to do with all this stuff?" I culled the lot down to what I absolutely needed, and what the people would let me put on a plane, and that was it.
For me, the usefulness of these types of posts is to see what gear they get by with. You could compare that list to others and quickly put together a gear list based on what you think would work best for you. It's easier to work based off the experience of others rather than having to reinvent the wheel.
I don't think it's about an extreme difficulty with choosing clothing. I think daily life's improvements happen in between the lines; series of small decisions we can make that have a larger effect on us when taken together. It's about freeing up space little by little as opposed to monumental changes (which are much more challenging to implement and maintain).
I started doing this with socks. I bought a package of black crew socks and packed away all of my other socks. It simplified a little bit of my life, and I never unpacked the other socks. I eventually bought in for the rest of my wardrobe. It's nice not needing to stop and think "does this go together?" (or the equivalent of my wife saying "you can't go out looking like that!")
Personally, I don't have problems to choose clothes to wear in the morning, but I don't like deciding what clothes to buy (there's always someone to criticize). It's tempting to buy several versions of the same item, but people around you may think you're dirty because you wear the same thing everyday.
Obama also has commented on his choice to have only one kind of suit. I have a few friends who do the same. Not saying that it makes you Obama or Steve but it isn't uncommon to optimize that part of life away once you have a suitable outfit that looks good.
That is funny actually because people made a big deal about it, so when you are the president and have people paying attention to what you wear that gives you another reason to just stick to one good choice.
My source was this article, maybe Obama doesn't always follow his own advice:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3026265/work-smart/always-wear-t...
It depends on how much making decisions annoy you. For me, it's a great annoyance, not just in regards to what to wear, but what to eat, what brand to buy, etc. So I devise methods to limit my choices or eliminate it altogether. With clothes it's easy — have multiple copies of the same shirt. Similarly with food, I just order daily specials.
I like making decisions, generally speaking. I also recognize that each comes with a cognitive cost and if I streamline some of the minor ones, I'll have more energy each day.
I'm not sure this is how the author is thinking about it. It's probably more like "I'll only have a few pieces of clothing, so I need to make sure they all match."
I am not a minimalist, but literally everything I own except my car fits comfortably in a 12x15 room. There is plenty of space, and the closet is nowhere near full. That's simple enough for me. :)
That's a very fair point. This is probably a lifestyle for someone who'd otherwise be living on middle class tech worker wages. It's for people who have the luxury to choose their lifestyle. In no way do I view his backpack and duffel as as a solution to poverty.
Then again, I see your comment pretty frequently in response to minimalism. Maybe because it can look like a vow of poverty, but really is not even close.
Maybe the total "stuff" burden should be calculated as:
amount of stuff owned * amount you care about it
Owning a small number of things you fetishise seems not so different than having a pile of crap that you don't care about at all.
The "owning less stuff" movement seems to have a lot more traction where rents are high and space is constrained. It seems to me that people tend to produce moral justifications for what are simply practical constraints.
For me it's about lessening the mental taxation that often comes with the added responsibility of owning things. Mostly from giving you more choices and more things to tend to or care about (even if subconscious). Having to decide what to wear, what to eat for dinner or what to buy at the grocery store might seem like trivial things, but when all of these small things are compounded they end up consuming a large part of your mental energy. Owning less things is just one effort to free up that mental energy to be able to use it elsewhere.
I used to do this, but then I started to get into cooking. Cookware weighs you down quite a bit...
It's nice doing this when travelling, while also having a home base. I have a lightweight setup for short trips, and a bigger one for longer trips (music production gear that all fits in a oversize check-in bag).
What good is cookware if you have no kitchen? If you rent a furnished place with a kitchen there's a reasonable chance it'll have the cookware you need. If you have a permanent residence then the cookware needed to create thousands of dishes could fit in a single cupboard.
Well, once you get into it as a hobby, you want to get your own specific cookware, and the gadgets start adding up. A dutch oven, pressure cooker, mixer, wok, cast iron pans, stock pots, etc all start to add up and you have to commit to having some home-base eventually.
Does this guy not wash his clothes? I can't imagine a shirt being used 3 days in a row at the gym not smelling awful.
I'm also a bit fascinated at going out of your way to buy shirts half-off, then buying a 12-inch macbook. If you only own a couple things, why not just get the thing directly?
Though maybe this is one of those "the richest people are the stingiest" things
I am super fascinated by minimalism as a concept though, especially when the rubber hits the road. What do you do for weddings, for example? How can you mesh minimalism with trying not to waste things (disposable toiletries are a bit of a waste).
Bit OT, but I remember some guy who went minimalist after the macbook air came out. Like just shirts, MBA, and a kindle. I remember the blog being pretty popular in tech circles, does anyone know what I'm thinking about?
The trick to livable minimalism is: money. Plenty of it.
At the opposite end of the spectrum you see people who keep everything, including cars in their yard for spare parts, because they know they might not have money to buy the things they need, so keep whatever might be handy in the form of "stuff".
The shirt is merino wool. It's magical stuff. As my top level comment said, I have the same shirt. I've worn it similarly. It truly hasn't stunk, no matter how long I've worn it, or how long it's gone between washings (not, granted, that I've pushed it; I think, at worst, it's gone a couple weeks between washings, being worn perhaps half that time).
Yeah, nthing merino. Amazing as long as you hang dry between wearings. The thicker the better, even in warm weather (thin merino can wear holes pretty quickly).
> Bit OT, but I remember some guy who went minimalist after the macbook air came out. Like just shirts, MBA, and a kindle. I remember the blog being pretty popular in tech circles, does anyone know what I'm thinking about?
The minimalism he talks about still largely depends on other people helping out. I'm far more interested in decentralized minimalism. Growing your own food, cooking at home, building your own tiny house, solar panels, composters e.t.c
The tiny house thing boggles my mind. Where I grew up, I had lots of friends that lived in them. The rich kids made fun of them, called the "trailer trash".
I've recently become pretty serious about building open source "micro factories" so that small communities can be self sufficient without having to spend all of their time subsistence farming.
I think it will take a few decades to achieve, but I'm working on it.
A tiny house might be liveable in mild/warm climates. I live in a cold country and spend most of my time indoors. Couldn't imagine being stuck in a tiny space all the time I home.
I don't see how that chalk bag can be useful without 1. climbing shoes and 2. a harness and/or a crashpad. I guess he boulders barefoot at an indoor gym?
I was thinking the same thing before I ready the article; what does this dude do borrow equipment from everyone he meets?! I carry more rock climbing gear on a multi-pitch climb than stuff he owns!
But then I read the description and it sounds like it's for general working out or something? IDK, I've never personally needed chalk for or met anyone that needed chalk for lifting. Perhaps he works out in very humid climates, but I'd think there would be chalk provided at the gyms? Likely an item that could be practically dropped?
> IDK, I've never personally needed chalk for or met anyone that needed chalk for lifting. Perhaps he works out in very humid climates, but I'd think there would be chalk provided at the gyms?
Just as another data point: I've never been to a gym that supplies chalk to members. If you're doing heavy deadlifting or olympic lifting then chalk is nearly a requirement.
Possibly fair point about the gym supplying, however I've never worked out at a gym in a climate where I'd need it. I can imagine gyms in Thailand or Indonesia being so humid to need it though. Heavy deadlifting is subjective; very few people "need" chalk under normal conditions.
The article writer mentions rings though. I can def see a need for the chalk if they are doing rings.
as an anecdotal counterpoint, I always used chalk for any deadlift over 2 plates, otherwise I was simply unable to grip the weight at all. And while I didn't need it for virtually any other exercise, sometimes when my hands would be extra sweaty a little chalk went a long way in improving my grip, for example on the bench. I can use more strength in the exercise itself rather than worrying about losing grip
I appreciate the aesthetic of minimalism, and if it's pragmatic for a particular person, more power to them.
There is, however, an underlying (but not specifically articulated) article of faith in the Silicon Valley / news.yc / startup / digital nomad culture that a minimalist life is somehow more moral or sophisticated or something.
This meme goes at least as far 2400 years ago when Diogenes the Cynic lived in a barrel.
Much of this pride in minimalism is coupled w a only thinly veiled disgust with how "bloated" and "gross" other people are. I've seen blog posts, coffee table books, etc. that intentionally juxtapose pictures of a virtuous, thin, happy minimalist with a unhappy, overweight person and their tons of possessions.
seems almost designed to make us recoil from the "wasteful" American family.
The problem I have with this stance is two-fold:
(1) there is no inherent reason why it's wasteful or gross to own a lot of things. Sure, some people purchase junk too fill a void inside them. But other people drink to excess, sleep around, or travel to the ends of the earth for the same reason. Just because some people in category X are motivated this way doesn't mean that everyone in category X is.
(2) much of the self-congratulation on minimalism is really just disguised self-congratulation for being upper-middle class and having the "right" preferences. A lot of people would tell you that there is no reason that rock-and-roll is inherently better than Indian pop music or African whatever - it's just different cultures with different norms. And yet many of these same people would tell you that their upper-middle-class Silicon Valley lifestyle _IS_ better than, say, that of some family living in the suburbs of Texas. The fact that the minimalist Silicon Valley is both enabled by and required by very high incomes is ignored. (What I mean by this: living in SF / Silicon Valley means that you CAN'T have a huge kitchen or garage full of stuff, and it also means that you have the means to substitute other people's capital and labor for your own.)
The family living in suburbs in Oklahoma might have a two car garage, but they might also have two rolling tool chests in those garages, so that they can do all the auto maintenance that they need. The minimalist living in SF instead might take Ubers.
How is the "gross" profusion of junk in the former case less virtuous than the minimalism of second case?
This leads me to my third point: there is no possibility of true minimalism: there is only the ability to outsource the ownership of things to someone else. The SF loft minimalist who only owns two plates and two forks actually owns a fractional share in dozens of industrial kitchens and hundreds of food delivery trucks; they're just kept "off the books". Out of sight, out of mind.
A lot of people like to own things, for their own reasons. Some good, some bad.
Be aware that when you read "ooh, minimalism good!" articles, you're reading self-flattery. And that's fine - people are allowed to be fans of their own economic class and lifestyle aesthetic.
...but such propaganda should not be consumed uncritically, or without awareness of who and what is implicitly being denegrated by it.
> (1) there is no inherent reason why it's wasteful or gross to own a lot of things
Really? Maybe I'm a bit naive, but nearly everything you own was produced and transported by using natural resources and energy, and it will eventually lay on a garbage heap occupying space. So every existing thing at least makes a smaller or bigger contribution to environmental pollution and climate change.
There are economies of scale, though, in those industrial kitchens, just as the utilization of the auto mechanic's tools are higher than those in the two-car garage.
I agree it is largely aesthetics, but there are economic arguments (on both sides, obviously).
I also agree that a lot of minimalism is disguised class signalling. (You don't need to travel with even a suitcase if you bring your credit card.)
After reading your comment -- some of the thoughts of which I have already come to myself -- I realize it could be really hard to tease apart the source of any desire I have to minimalize: do I want to because I think it's genuinely a more productive or helpful way to live, or is it all just signalling? Just curious, have you ever had any fleeting wish to own less?
I absolutely have occasionally wanted to own less. For example, when I last moved houses. :)
I own a crazy amount of things because I own a lot of books, I have a well equipped workshop, and I live on a farm (which means that I have two chainsaws, a tractor, a dozen tractor implements, a chicken plucker, an apple cider press, specialty tools for working on all of these things, and so forth and so on).
All in all I like my lifestyle, but I can also appreciate the benefits of other lifestyles.
Not to mention that a lot of the material minimalism goes out of the window once you have kids. Like any ideology, foisting it upon children may or may not be a good thing. I've seen that kids thrive when they are surrounded by a dump of blocks, books, toys, etc. which they can explore by themselves.
I see where you're going, and I like the general direction, but I won't agree with "No? -> You are wrong."
A major strength of human society is its diversity and individual specialization. Everyone needs a different job, so that all jobs get done. If I imagine a work where everyone does the same job, it will result in mayhem because other important jobs don't get done. But that doesn't mean that every job is wrong.
That's the thing about these people who don't own much more than a MacBook Pro. They talk like they're some kind of buddhist monk with their minimal life but in reality they're relying on the consumerist society (dining out, using only disposable stuff, etc) and have a much bigger environmental impact that if they owned some cookware to cook their own food for example.
> if everyone else in the world would do what you do, would the world still work?
Do you define the current state of the world as "working"?
You'd be better to say "if more people in the world did what I do, would things get better or worse".
It's not my birth-function in life to perpetuate the way society currently functions. I didn't sign some kind of contract that says I will make life decisions to make sure things stay the way they are now. If I choose to work less, and consume less, that's entirely my choice. If everyone did it there would obviously be impacts, and things would change, though nobody has ever convinced me that society wouldn't be better if people had more leisure time and less stuff.
>>Always, always, always ask yourself the following: if everyone else in the world would do what you do, would the world still work.
The sun would still rise tomorrow. Supposed time as we think to know it really exist. Some people say that there is not such a thing as time and we all are one. In this case everybody is doing what he is doing. And the world seems to work for me.
There may very well be steps to sustainability that should not be continued in the long term or for more than some people. Should the president resign because the world couldn't function if everyone could veto things?
It's easy to be a "maximalist" compared to this. Have a spouse, have kids. Cook. Have pretty much any hobby. Maintain a house (tools, lawn junk). Have people over sometimes who expect you to, you know, have things like a normal person does.
That said, if I were young, unattached, and traveling a lot, of course I'd live like this. It doesn't even seem that special or surprising to me to live this way under those circumstances.
There's a hilariously ridiculous piece from Dustin Curtis that mixes this minimalist approach with "only having the best of everything": https://dcurt.is/the-best
I quite like to imagine him having a few people over for dinner: "Oh, sorry, I'm afraid my indescribably perfect Japanese flatware costs $8,000 for a fork so I could only buy two. The rest of you can just use your hands, but you're welcome to admire my fork for a moment if you wish to..."
I have some 10 year old flatware that I picked up from a yard sale in college. I'm pretty sure it's just as dependable and useful as his...
While I completely understand the maniacal pursuit of "the best" (I've developed obsessions with mattresses, digital cameras, and shaving razors at various points in my life) deeply caring about every single one of your possessions seems way more exhausting than it's worth.
> I lot of the smartest and happiest people I've had the privilege of meeting have a habit of simplifying.
Simplifying doesn't necessarily lead to minimalism. For example, when I'm stuck on a problem, I enjoy noodling around on my guitar. Some days I work from home, some days I go to my office. The minimal solution would be to carry my guitar everywhere, the simple solution is to buy a second guitar to keep at work.
I wonder what the writer things of people with pets or kids? They complicate every decision and often limit your options in the moment.
Not quite a sculptor, but I collect a lot of records, somewhere around 2000 at last count. Takes up a lot of space, not to mention 2 heavy turntables and a mixer. That plus music production gear (speakers, amplifier, synths/keyboards, mixer, computer, sound card, not to mention furniture to put it all on, and then there's guitars, guitar amp, pedals...) takes up a lot of space. It'd be nice to live minimally but I'd have to sacrifice my favorite hobbies.
In theory, one shouldn't need to get rid of things physically, one could do it "mentally" instead. But that turns out to be extremely hard in practice. Still, the true minimalism is just being less concerned with material things rather than being constantly concerned with their presence around you (or even in your "possession").
I recognize this stuff and the impulse to tell people. It looks well optimized and easy. I have no doubt you live comfortably.
Right now I've been moving away from the precious few strategy and over to the durably disposable. My idea is to one day forget everything I own in a coffee shop, shrug, and rebuy immediately for a day's pay.
There's something to be said for documenting one's experiences and practical tips for traveling light for the benefit of others. Wrapping them in some sort of pretense of a moral philosophy seems gratingly contradictory and tone deaf, though.
"The Zuckerbergs, Bransons, hedge fund managers of the world are wearing the same few things, eating the same few things and trying to work in the same few places. [...] My first week on the road, my old laptop broke. I had work to do, so I went to the first Apple store I could find in Thailand and bought this guy."
Ok, great but this is not in any conceivable way, as a goal or in practice, any of this:
"Practice in poverty. Routinely exposing yourself to fear, stress and hardship in a stable environment to bulletproof your mind for when the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan."
> "Practice in poverty. Routinely exposing yourself to fear, stress and hardship in a stable environment to bulletproof your mind for when the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan."
Yeah, I'm not sure this is what Seneca had in mind. More like visiting the soup kitchen as a diner while wearing clothes you got for free.
I wouldn't be happy with the clothes decision. I like it to have clothes for 3 weeks so I only need to wash every 3 Weeks. Also we got 6 washing machines in my building, so totally I spend about 30 Minutes for washing and drying and wait 2 hours for it to finish in my flat every 3 weeks.
Also I found my favourite brands for T-Shirts, underwear and jeans which always have the same size cut. So buying clothes once a year is also a nobrainer, I only select the color which is easily done.
The style decision is also none, a good fitting jeans matches any t-shirt, shirt and hoodie.
I'm always fascinated by how people choose to live while traveling, so thanks for sharing! Curious though how you handle food. Do you prepare your own or eat out? Judging from the lack of utensils, etc I imagine the latter.
If he's in Thailand (which I'm assuming from him having a Thai Macbook), then it's actually much cheaper and more convenient to eat out, at least anywhere outside Bangkok. Same situation in Cambodia -- I initially attempted to cook a lot here but gave up since it's cheaper to eat the food in my alley and around the market near my apartment and it tastes better than anything I can cook.
I bought (among other things) the Wool & Prince merino button-down for a hand-luggage-only around-the-world trip last year. It is every bit as amazing as he suggests, and then some.
Same here (I spend roughly half of the year on the road). The shirt is not super durable (was too frayed to be presentable after maybe 250 wears), but amazing enough that I immediately got a new one.
Maybe you've already tried it, but I've got a roughly 12x3x2" dopp kit and it's AWESOME. The utility/cognitive load for my dopp kit has to be higher than for any other thing I own.
I think I bought it at Walmart for maybe $20 bucks. It might be the highest EV purchase I've ever made.
Generally, the only places that may regularly need soap are the armpits and groin. So why do we think we need to soap up all over every day?
The same reason we do a lot of unnecessary things: advertising. Soap manufacturers spent many years promoting the idea that unless you bathed daily using soap everywhere you would be more smelly than a skunk and people would shun you.
That's also why we use mouthwash daily, by the way. Listerine was first sold to consumers as a floor cleaner. To boost sales the manufacturer invented the word "halitosis" (because that makes it sound much more serious than "bad breath") and promoted Listerine as the way to prevent it using scary ads proclaiming that you might not even know you have it but your friends will know. It worked, and in under a decade revenue went up by nearly two orders of magnitude.
There's an excellent "Adam Ruins Everything" episode on hygiene that goes over these things and more.
> Soap manufacturers spent many years promoting the idea that unless you bathed daily using soap everywhere you would be more smelly than a skunk and people would shun you.
I have had occasion to be near people who believe as you do on a regular basis, and yes — they have a strong odour. I do not find it pleasant, although I suppose it is not completely and totally unpleasant either. It is definitely present, and not something I would choose to invite into my own personal space.
And whatever one calls bad breath, it can be so bad as to cause one to retch.
I won't propose that modern washing & mouthwash measures are the best preventatives to these issues, but I do insist that these are actual issues.
Yup. Basic idea is hormesis: you WANT the bacteria on your skin, and you are doing yourself a disservice by washing it off. Same deal with gut bacteria. Hell, they even have soap with bacteria IN it now...
"The pen and paper, well... that's the most important thing I own."
Without explaining why a cellphone or that thai notebook wouldn't work there is a bit odd while claiming its the most important thing you own. If it's the most important, i think it deserves a few lines on why.
In the Philippines, I could add another item to the list. In certain areas, you don't have trash services. When people want to get rid of something, they burn it. Whenever I buy something, I put great thought into how I eventually get rid of it.
macbooks are not minimalistic in any sense of the word, the concept, it's utilities, etc. Not sure how this would be a part of anyone's minimalistic arsenal.
Apple products have always been minimalistic. Minimalism has nothing to do with being cheap. Minimalism is doing things like removing the floppy disk drive at the turn of the century, carving a laptop out of a single piece of aluminum, or removing all jacks except one or two.
Besides, it doesn't matter. The writer isn't saying that any one of his possessions is minimalistic. He's saying that his number of possessions is minimalistic.
They claim to not "own" things, but they are still using things. Sometimes that means greater consumption. Not owning a towel is cool, until you start drying yourself with paper towels at the gym (I saw this today). Not owning tools is cool, if you are rich/well-connected enough to find someone to fix all your stuff. I own a small mountain of tools, but also haven't had need of a professional plumber or carpenter is years. When my office chair or laptop breaks, I'm able to fix it myself. Reuse is better than recycling. Sometimes that means owning tools. (I carry a set of screwdrivers even in my laptop carry-on.)
And all the stuff in the OP looks far too new. It doesn't show much wear and tear. So either it isn't being used, or these things are being replaced too soon. I own many shirts. Some are shiny and new. I wear those when I want to look good. I have other shirts for daily use. Eventually the shiny ones become daily shirts. I own more shirts, but I consumer fewer because I find uses for shirts that a minimalist would throw away prematurely. That makes me the better minimalist because, over the years, I will consumer far fewer.