There is something very appealing about owning a small number of material possessions and living a "minimalist" lifestyle. But I'm well aware of the messy contradictions surrounding such an issue. Living minimally is a choice you can make when you live in relatively rich country. It's not a choice for many millions of others around the world who make do with little because of their circumstances. What's more, our economies (certainly "Western" economies) are geared to the production and consumption of goods, if not for our own populations then for export to other countries for them to consume. So can only a small number of us choose to live minimally as long as everyone else decides not to? How else are we going to buy the expensive laptop essential to our minimalist life? (Am I being too cynical?)
And does minimal living always equate to sustainable living? If you're jetting all over the world in a plane, is that environmentally friendly? Wouldn't the locals prefer you spend some of your tourist money on their goods and services so they too can live a comfortable life? Many environmentalists believe the huge amount of resources needed to rear and feed animals is unsustainable. Giving up meat or reducing our consumption could be considered sustainable, but it's not what people would consider as part of a minimal lifestyle.
And finally, is it really a choice between a consumer/material lifestyle and a minimal lifestyle? Or more realistically, a choice between excessive material consumption (e.g. 70 shirts as stated in the article) or just a more modest material lifestyle?
I don't really get the idea of "sustainable living"
as in, I'm not supposed to eat beef or fly on a plane, because there are not enough of those things to support everyone on the planet doing at US rates
Like, I get that if everyone started eating beef that would take an oversized share of arriable land, but wouldn't that then be reflected in the price for beef?
I like hamburger, but if I had to pay fois gras prices for it because everyone in China liked it too, driving up the price for beef, I'd probably switch to eating something different
if we're still at cheap beef prices, seems like a pretty strong signal to me, that current beef consumption is in fact sustainable
You're taking it on faith that the price of beef in the store currently reflects the actual costs of producing that beef. And that it would continue to do so if the beef industry became even larger and more powerful.
But it isn't true, current "cheap beef prices" (they are actually up a lot just now [1]) are a reflection, in part, of the public funds and public property use that are routinely donated to agribusiness.
You can't tell what the cost of beef is by looking at the pricetag, and that's true about a lot of real-world products and services. You can't rely on the market to give you a signal in such cases. And you can't tell which cases are which without digging in to every one.
I don't mean to pick on you, exactly, but your attitude is one I see online frequently. "I took Econ 101 and therefore I can tell which global industrial supply chains are or are not sustainable just by looking at price-tags in the grocery store." When even real economists get things wrong all the time.
The primary resource limitation for food isn't mere land (we have plenty) or water (plenty as long as you don't live in a temporarily reclaimed desert) but petrochemicals. Your food comes out of an oil well. When the well empties, you stop getting food. Pretty much that simple.
"isn't your sustainability status with regards to that conveyed by price information as well though?"
No, the sustainability of production isn't included in the price, and that's part of the problem. There have been suggestions on how to fix this (e.g. carbon tax) but none have come to pass (not on a wide scale anyway).
Both. Pollution externalities are basically unpriced, and oil production is massively subsidised. Governments suffer from hyperbolic discounting - they would rather keep gas prices low for the next election than deal with the expensive and difficult long-term process of transitioning to more sustainable sources of energy.
"also all economic actors discount the future at varying rates"
Which future are you referring to, the near future? Economic actors generally care about the profit which is closest to them, any consideration of the future beyond that is considerably weaker.
Also, consideration of economic actors is an abstract idea, what is being discussed is the reality of what exists today. What would you propose for ensuring the overall costs were more completely reflected in the final price?
I don't think you need to worry about the economy collapsing because of a wide spread adoption of minimalism, conspicuous consumption seems to be an innate trait.
"the messy contradictions surrounding such an issue"
Consider another, its OK to keep hobby stuff per the article. I'm sure they were thinking of a (singular) fishing pole or a pair of hiking boots. Anyone into ham radio, electronics, carpentry, computers, metalworking knows you can easily fill a basement over the course of a lifetime while remaining "minimal" as per the strict definition.
I could get rid of my artwork, books, and fridge door clutter, but it wouldn't improve my life very much.
And does minimal living always equate to sustainable living? If you're jetting all over the world in a plane, is that environmentally friendly? Wouldn't the locals prefer you spend some of your tourist money on their goods and services so they too can live a comfortable life? Many environmentalists believe the huge amount of resources needed to rear and feed animals is unsustainable. Giving up meat or reducing our consumption could be considered sustainable, but it's not what people would consider as part of a minimal lifestyle.
And finally, is it really a choice between a consumer/material lifestyle and a minimal lifestyle? Or more realistically, a choice between excessive material consumption (e.g. 70 shirts as stated in the article) or just a more modest material lifestyle?