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

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#41

Post by yassam »

matthewwiese wrote: post #31
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 reason I mentioned the super rich of the past, is that they had enough money to buy whatever was available. Most other people couldn't afford to buy much at all, I imagine.

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.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#42

Post by pm90 »

malingo wrote: post #35

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." E…

So true. After you pass a certain income level, discounts and such stop being as attractive as they would be, because the utility that you get from saving money but keeping stuff around is probably less than not having stuff until you need it, albeit paying more for it.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#44

Post by lugg »

greggman wrote: post #25

By choice I've been living out of a suitcase for 19 months now. As a stuffoholic and someone that kind of likes fashion it's been an interesting experience. 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 withou…

Somewhere between 5 or 6 and 44 I'm guessing.

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)

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#45

Post by yardie »

bluedino wrote: post #15
maxerickson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the future depends on whether energy continues to get cheaper or not (cheaper energy probably leads to increased consumption, but it also makes it cheaper to clean stuff up, and gives people more time to worry about cleaning up, 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 m…

I feel bad for criminals who had to team up to haul 36" televisions out of a house during a burglary. These days one robber could haul out a pair of 60" thin LED televisions by themselves.

Man, I'm having flashbacks of when my friend's mom bought a 36" Sony trinitron. 4 skinny teenagers trying to move this behemoth up a flight of stairs and position it into it's cabinet. I think we aged our backs a few years on that one project.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#46

Post by icebraining »

yassam wrote: post #41
matthewwiese wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reason I mentioned the super rich of the past, is that they had enough money to buy whatever was available. Most other people couldn't afford to buy much at all, I imagine. 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 ins…

Well, when you have a rococo interior, the house looks filled even when it's empty :)

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.

http://www.edwardianpromenade.com/marriage/the-twin-bed/

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#47

Post by greggman »

lugg wrote: post #44
greggman wrote: post #25

By choice I've been living out of a suitcase for 19 months now. As a stuffoholic and someone that kind of likes fashion it's been an interesting experience. 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 withou…

Somewhere between 5 or 6 and 44 I'm guessing. 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 moved countries a couple of times too and it was educational how much stuff I didn't miss, all my books for example, all my memorabilia as well.

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.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#48

Post by paganel »

lugg wrote: post #44
greggman wrote: post #25

By choice I've been living out of a suitcase for 19 months now. As a stuffoholic and someone that kind of likes fashion it's been an interesting experience. 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 withou…

Somewhere between 5 or 6 and 44 I'm guessing. 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…

> Apparently I didn't need that pizza cutter after all

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.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#49

Post by anon012012 »

jqm wrote: post #39

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 thing…

When there'll be drone delivery, you could imagine a service where you rent for example a hammer for one hour, when you need one, for a few cents it'd fly to your window, then you send it back.

Re: The hazards of too much stuff

#50

Post by maxerickson »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
sukilot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's sloppily written. I expect that the increase in quality of what is on the market has moved the average buyer down. Thus, today, there are fewer $1500 TVs available for stealing than there were in 1990 (there are likely many more $500 TVs though, so maybe it wasn't a good example). Anyway, setting that example aside, I still have the idea that stuff is worth less today.
Post reply on HN