Skip to main content

Stuffocation - 6 ways Experiences beat Stuff

Image
By
Having everything we thought we wanted isn't making us happier. It's bad for the planet. It's cluttering up our homes. It's making us feel 'stuffocated' and stressed - and it might even be killing us.
Reading that on the back cover of Stuffocation: Living More with Less immediately grabbed me. But this is not just about stating the problem. The back cover continues...
With intriguing insights on psychology, economics and culture, Stuffocation is a vital manifesto for change. It has inspired those who have read it to be happier and healthier, and to live more, with less
The book is in basically four parts. Part one outlines stuffocation and its harmful effects on our health and happiness. Part two looks at how we got 'stuffocated' - the start of the 20th century materialistic culture.

In part three we get into the here-and-now. The author looks at 3 different alternatives to materialism and stuffocation - with real examples.

Minimalism

In a way this is the direct opposite of materialism. Deliberately reducing the number of objects you own. You may have heard of things like the "33 item wardrobe" or the "100 thing life".

Simple Living

An example of this is living in a simple house in the country, being more self-sufficient and separate from the consumer world that continually asks us to work and buy, and work and buy, and work...

The Medium Chill

An alternative to the 60 hours-a-week, corporate ladder lifestyle. The medium chill is being happy to work 3 or 4 days a week. Maybe turning down a promotion if it means more stress and longer hours. It's about being willing to ignore the society pressure about getting the biggest fastest newest shiniest things and taking more time for the things you enjoy.

You may have guessed that I quite like the sound of the medium chill. But the author writes that none of these have the potential to be a significant new 'trend'. While he sees value in each of them, he thinks that each has its drawback in terms of becoming a widespread movement - the way materialism did in the 20th century.

He reckons most people would find minimalism negative (essentially anti-materialism), simple living too regressive (it's not everyone's cup of tea to grow crops or chop firewood for heat), and the medium chill as being like normal life but in slow motion.

The author's answer

His answer (part 4) is experientialism. Valuing the experience of doing something rather than owning something.

He finds that facebook is already starting to spread this new trend. Think of the photos your friends share. Do you see many newly-bought items? Or do you see photos of your friends at the beach? Out at a restaurant? Seeing the sunrise? Going on a hike? Seeing their kids start school?

Experiences have proven advantages over material objects.
1. We often remember them as better than they really were.
2. Even the most exciting gadget is soon boring and part of everyday life.
3. Experiences are harder to compare than physical possessions, so there's less envy.
4. We view experiences as contributing to who we are.
5. They bring us closer to other people.

The author would add a sixth advantage - they don't clutter up our house.

Stuffocation: Living More with Less also contains some resources, starting with the quiz Have you had enough of stuff? and finishing with 3 steps to becoming an experientialist and the 7 habits of highly effective experientialists.

I see his point, but still think medium chill sounds pretty good.
Read more about:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Adam ruins work

By
The TV show Adam Ruins Everything took a look at the workplace - and the 40 hour work week. It confirms my thoughts that the 40-hour work week (or at least it's relevance today) is a figment of our imagination. Very enlightening. Watch it now . The first 7 minutes are the most relevant. There were some astonishing stats coming out of it. For example, we spend only 45% of the work week doing our actual job (not including meetings etc). That's about 18 hours per week. Interestingly, that's what experts predicted. With rises in productivity, the 1950s brought talk of a 4-day work week. By 2030 they reckoned we might work just 15 hours per week. But instead we work longer hours. That results in more mistakes and safety mishaps. It also reduces brain function. We might think that it's being productive but Adam points to countries that have as much prosperity as America while working much shorter hours. A classic case of 'less is more'. PS. for the basis of ...
Post a Comment
Read more

My mug shot

By
This is every mug I own. How many did I buy? Zero. They seem to just appear. I don't even drink tea or coffee. In winter I have might have a hot chocolate or cocoa. So 9 mugs seems like a lot. How does this happen? I reckon most mugs are gifts. There are two reasons for this. 1. It's a safe bet. People need to drink. It's kind of like buying your dad socks for father's day. But the difference is that socks wear out and need replacing. Cups don't. One of these mugs i received as a kid in the 90s. It still works fine. Now it has 8 friends. 2. It's often for what's on the mug. It might be a greeting card-style message, or a sports team logo, or something humorous. It's a good thing that something functional can also provide an inspiring message or pleasant memory as you use it. But the problem comes when we have too much. If I use the cup my sister gave me at Christmas, then I'm not using the 'awesome brother' one she already gave m...
2 comments
Read more

Investing Less, Earning More

By
Could investing $13,000 be better than investing $70,000? In this case, the answer seems to be yes. In Making Money Made Simple , Noel Whittaker compares two hypothetical investors: Person 1: Invests $ 1,000 a year from age 18-30. Person 2: Invests $ 2,000 a year from age 30-65. You might think that person 2 would be better off, but here's how it goes (in chart form): Person 1 stops investing at 30, but their investment keeps growing. At that point, person 1's yearly growth is more than person 2's yearly contribution. That's why person 2 never catches up. Person 1 ends up about $ 150,000 ahead, despite investing about one-fifth of what the person 2 invested. What if growth isn't so good? These calculations assume 10% growth. What if it isn't that high? Fair point. I've run the numbers at lower rates of growth. At 9%, person 1 is still better off. At 8% it's close, and person 2 comes out slightly ahead. But that's not really the poin...
2 comments
Read more