Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The hazards of too much stuff

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#31

Post by matthewwiese »

yassam wrote: post #18

I wonder to what extent a lifetime of exposure to advertising contributes to our craving for stuff. The article claims an evolutionary psychological explanation: anyone know of any research to back that up? Our ancestors were nomadic, so acquiring a lot of stuff wouldn't have made sense, would it? 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…

Interesting thought! However, I think in the case of the super rich of earlier times, the amassing of 'stuff' was a sign of material wealth. Hoarding fine linens, brilliant jewels, and the like would've served a different purpose.

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.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#32

Post by vinchuco »

arbuge wrote: post #7
0942v8653 wrote: post #4

Also worth reading: http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html

The only part I disagree with a bit is the one where he exempts books. I think it is possible to buy too many. I've probably engaged in this behavior myself. I find it hard to resist buying a good book, but I have a bunch of them now piling up physically and electronically which I find it hard to find time for. Books piling up exert pressure to be read, but simply succumbing to the pressure to read them all might res…

Easy, just buy a book when you have finished reading the previous one

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#33

Post by pc2g4d »

namuol wrote: post #30

One anti-stuffocation tip: Invest in a good camera. Get one that can take decent close-ups. 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.

This is my preferred method of ditching old junk I'm attached to but that serves no other purpose than to connect me to the past.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#34

Post by bcks »

We live in a four unit building and one of the units just went on the market. The former tenants cleared out everything for their open house and just brought in some minimal, modern "staging" furniture. It was astonishing to see essentially the same apartment layout but with none of the stuff — a kind of bizarre alternate reality. It prompted our new year's resolution: we will get rid of (at least) 5 things a day for a year. So far so good, and we've cleared off and removed an entire set of shelves.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#35

Post by malingo »

I really enjoyed this related post from a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5371253

"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.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#36

Post by stegosaurus »

yassam wrote: post #18

I wonder to what extent a lifetime of exposure to advertising contributes to our craving for stuff. The article claims an evolutionary psychological explanation: anyone know of any research to back that up? Our ancestors were nomadic, so acquiring a lot of stuff wouldn't have made sense, would it? 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…

Surely the important distinction between the 'super-rich' and us mere mortals is that they can afford to acquire stuff that is inherently worth keeping to an extent?

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.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#37

Post by thrownaway2424 »

bcks wrote: post #34

We live in a four unit building and one of the units just went on the market. The former tenants cleared out everything for their open house and just brought in some minimal, modern "staging" furniture. It was astonishing to see essentially the same apartment layout but with none of the stuff — a kind of bizarre alternate reality. It prompted our new year's resolution: we will get rid of (at least) 5 things a day for…

You really have thousands of things you can get rid of? My house is a mess because my wife won't stop buying things for the kids but even so, I'm sure there's not 365x5 things in here I could get rid of, unless I could every sticker and crayon separately.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#38

Post by jessaustin »

vinchuco wrote: post #32
arbuge wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only part I disagree with a bit is the one where he exempts books. I think it is possible to buy too many. I've probably engaged in this behavior myself. I find it hard to resist buying a good book, but I have a bunch of them now piling up physically and electronically which I find it hard to find time for. Books piling up exert pressure to be read, but simply succumbing to the pressure to read them all might res…

Easy, just buy a book when you have finished reading the previous one

It is difficult for me to imagine, reading only one book at a time.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#39

Post by jqm »

I would love to own absolutely nothing, but have a portal follow me around, and anything I needed appeared through the portal, then disappeared as soon as I didn't need it anymore.

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.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

sukilot wrote: post #28
dragonwriter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1990, a $1000 TV was much higher end, relative to the market as a whole, than a $400 TV now. The idea that $400 today is a fantastic TV is, well, not well-grounded in reality. The fall of crime is probably more about age demographics than anything else.

Parent was speaking on an absolute scale. Not relative to market trends for arbitrary upgrades

That doesn't make any sense as an explanation for changes in the crime rate. If the quality descriptions were relative to each periods common expectations, then -- while it would still be desperately in need of support -- it would be a not-implausible conjecture as to a potential contributing factor to the effect it sought to explain. In absolute terms, is just a complete non-sequitur.
Post reply on HN