digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

The Challenge: Reduce Your Possessions to 100 Things

greenopolis.com — Can you live with just 100 Things? More and more people are saying they can.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • virginian9000, on 06/25/2008, -4/+23I doubt I could.
    • feliks2, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2When I travel I can live for a month a time (probably more, just never tried it) with a just a bit of clothes, toilettries, an mp3 player, phone, book, and some cards or something. But when I'm home 100^2 is more like it. My CD collection alone is double this limit.
    • bradbaxter, on 06/26/2008, -6/+11I don't understand the point of trying.... who cares who many things I own? Do people do this to make themselves feel less guilty about having stuff?
      • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4No, not at all. It's about getting lean and simplifying. My girlfriend and I recently purged about 160 cubic feet of stuff and found that our whole home is more enjoyable, seems much larger, spacious. But the strange thing is how your mind feels less cluttered, like when you clean off your desk. And the bottom line, we discovered, is that once the stuff is gone, you simply don't miss it at all. It just frees up mental space, like with the philosophy behind GTD. I highly recommend it, even if not down to 100 things; the number is arbitrary. It's the attitude that matters.
        • nullx42, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Nah, ***** that *****, I enjoy my dead power supplies and hundred of old 6 Gb hard drives.
        • macweirdo42, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Personally, I have my own philosophy - don't buy useless crap. I admit, I like having stuff, but I don't feel guilty because I actually make use of the stuff that I have. Well, excluding a couple of items that I picked up for free, that is. But I think that's the more important take home message - figure out what you actually need, or what you actually want (there's nothing wrong with having luxury items, just so long as they're not gathering dust in a closet somewhere).
        • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I don't think the 100 Things idea says not to have luxury items. It's about discriminating rather than accumulating. Sounds like you've already reached that state, but lots of people are baffled by the idea that less can be more.
    • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6Does my library count as one thing or many things? If I can count all the books together I have fewer than 100 things already. If not, then I have no interest in this challenge.
    • DrMonkeyLove, on 06/26/2008, -2/+9I don't even understand why you'd want to. I fail to see the benefit. It's not like throwing my ***** away is going to be better for the environment.

      I've got a better plan...
      The Challenge: Buy a bunch of stuff cheap that these idiots are throwing away.
  • GregViers, on 06/25/2008, -5/+34Wouldn't it be better to consume things that are environmentally friendly instead of just consuming less? Because the less we consume, the fewer jobs. If we are going to consume less, we would have to simplify our economies toward a more agrarian model or we'd all be broke.
    • corbettkroehler, on 06/25/2008, -3/+15We need to do both. Rampant consumerism is a big problem but a few drops of discarded motor oil can contaminate thousands of gallons of ground water.

      Yes, everything is illegal, immoral or fattening!
    • greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -4/+12No, "environmentally friendly" is an advertising term which is more accurately "perhaps slightly less damaging". The difference is akin to spouse abuse with open hand vs fist, or fist rather than weapon. Regardless, the only environmentally friendly action is to leave the natural world as close to it's natural state as possible, and that requires minimal consumption.

      The economic argument is something of a distraction. I can pay someone to give me a hummer, or I can pay them to be an organic farmer. Either way there is economic activity as long as I am willing to pay for them equally.
      • omnithought, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6No, no, never pay for a hummer. Just find a drunk girl.
      • Iluvator, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Wouldn't paying someone to be an organic farmer still be consuming (ie, food)? I mean, the article suggest consuming less entirely, not just consuming better.
        • greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Yes, but the relative damage of organic farming vs the roads mining oil plastics etc is pretty high, and while you can live without private transportation (particularly if we got serious about providing decent public transit), living without food presents challenges we haven't solved yet
      • conostrov, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Though your probably right about most 'environmentally friendly' labeling that is not to say there has not been serious environmental improvements over any period of time. you must admit, there are changes being made even despite all the green washing.

        The economic argument is a small bit more complex than a direct loss of jobs. Consumerism feeds technological advancement. One does not have to go very far back in history to see that stalling consumers 'unquenchable thirst' for all thing useless stalls innovation by limiting adoption and pushing up costs.
        • greenfyre, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2True up to a point, but recall the other choice is mass starvation, which also tends to stifle the economy.
    • samoan27, on 06/25/2008, -1/+18I agree; as an engineer I'll remind minimalists that advancements are made through gradual improvements and there needs to be customers for those gradual improvements for them to occur. If everyone held out for the 20 Terabyte iPod with every fancy feature imaginable, rather buying a new one every few years then it will never exist. What we need to do is make sure what will only be used temporarily will only exist in nature temporarily.
    • JohnnyRad, on 06/25/2008, -3/+4spoiler alert: this is what Wall-E is all about.
      • rhylan, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3I'm confused, is that really a spoiler?
      • warrenterr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1great! what kind of alert is that?
    • restlessmouse, on 06/26/2008, -4/+0I wouldn't worry too much about that; the only people who are really into this are already broke anyway.
    • sostoudt, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1im all for getting rid of excess stuff but i think a 100 items is extreme what about people that have hobbies or pets(does stuff for them count too). what about this computer or my 360 does every game i own count as one item. it should be more about consuming energy efficient devices and recycled materials. hell i could own a 100 air conditioners and that would be horrible for the environment.
      • greenfyre, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1But the solution is defined by the problem, not what we want the solution to be. Unfortunately we have been dicking around for 30 yrs, so now are options have become very limited..
    • JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -8/+3I was going to right an essay but I became overcome with guilt about the .000005Amps my keyboard would draw every keystroke.

      A little piece of me dies every time I type something.
      I'm off to cleanse myself of Carbon sin by purchasing carbon credits from Pope Al Gore.
    • manzplan, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3any time you consume something.. you harm the planet. We need a shift away from 40 hour work weeks.. if you consumed less - you wouldnt have to work as much and therefore would have more time to enjoy life...
      the government wants you to consume more - so you work more - so they make more taxes
    • stonefree1987, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2This is terrible. I've read that the vast majority of things people purchase are thrown away every 3 months or less. Why don't we instead focus on buying things that aren't disposable (made in china) and try to hold onto the things we have. I also noticed this article didn't mention recycling once.
  • btgoss, on 06/25/2008, -5/+93Is a pair of socks one thing or two?
    • beesaretasty, on 06/25/2008, -8/+3Is a box of condoms one thing or three?
      • MrSarcasm, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2One
      • wedges, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2one thing or twelve.
      • nedzeve, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Does it matter? You'll never get to use any of them any way.
      • topace3000, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Ah, the three condom box. I remember my first time buying condoms, too.
    • DrummerAndrew, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9'A' pair. 'Two' socks. Definitely bring a pair instead of two.
    • sockpuppets, on 06/25/2008, -2/+11It's two. Trust me, being in the drawer alone is maddening.
    • OmniShinzui, on 06/25/2008, -2/+8Can I count my Computer as one possession?
      If no, Can I count the tower and monitor as a possession?
      If no, Do I have to count all the components I bought and built to make the tower?

      If so, im in trouble. More so is the 12 soda cans on my desk.
      • thegodfaza, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Count every cable, screw, pixel(hey, they are transistors), led, capacitor...
        About 10^20.
    • aussiessuck, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Ok, so I bought a box of 100 nails, do I have to throw out one nail to keep my hammer.

      Its just that it seems wasteful.
    • suprememilo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3its 3: it's the pair and 2 individual socks.
  • chesapup, on 06/25/2008, -4/+20If socks count as two things I'm in trouble already!
  • GhostPanther, on 06/25/2008, -8/+8I wish the article went into more specifics and more anecdotal stories but still a very cool and potentially revolutionary idea.
    • bradbaxter, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6Where is the revolution? How exactly will this make the world a better place... if I throw away some cd's or some shirts, etc.?
      • Birdoftruth, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1quality over quantity, appreciating what you have. Less is more...
      • Raphae1, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Throwing those things away won't make the world a better place. Giving those things to other people would.
    • antipoet, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I agree. Reminds me a bit of gizmodo articles where the headline says it all.
    • JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5***** you.

      I have more than a 100 Dead shows on tape. I have I committed a green crime or carbon sin?

      You freaks need to stop preaching, you're starting to sound like Televangelists.
    • pbaehr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6The article it links to is more interesting:
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 ...
    • mike17032, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Sorry, but no. Not having things is not a "revolutionary idea", its called being poor. Being poor sucks, ask anyone who is.

      If you want to live life with less things than the average homeless person has, go nuts. But expect people to mock you like the ***** crazy moonbat that you are.
      • punx, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2But that's the whole point of these people. They don't have anything, they don't want to work to get anything so they will NEVER have anything, and they don't want anyone else to have anything. They want us all to be like them. To me, they come across as obnoxious hypocrites. Give these assholes a free big house, a nice big SUV (again, free) and watch how quickly they change their tune. They won't be singing the Save the Planet and Go Green song then.
        • Raphae1, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1How comes you seem so sure about that? Indeed I can imagine ideologically minded people, who really do not care about a big house and SUV.
      • Raphae1, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2There's a difference between having 100 things and being poor. Homeless poor people miss essential things. As long as the 100 things include all essentials like a place to live, food, clothes, medicine (if you get sick), you are neither poor nor homeless.
        • Julik, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1They did a show a while ago where they planted a suitcase with $50,000 in it in a trash can and followed around the homeless guy that found it. About 3 months later they were asking him what he has done with the money and if he was looking for a job, ect... He would not reveal to them how much is left, and when asked about the job he said that he had not thought about it yet and was having fun partying every night. 6 months after he found the money he was back homeless on the street.

          It kind of goes to show you why some homeless people are homeless. I can tell you that if I did not have a job and found $50,000 the first things I would focus on would be finding a job, so that when the $50,000 is gone I am not back on the street.
        • Raphae1, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1The first thing would probably be a roof over your head. You cannot find a job as long as you don't have an address. Secondly, having money doesn't necessarily help you in finding a job. To find a good job you need to be 25 years old and have 10 years working experience. Investing that money in occupational training might help though.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/25/2008, -4/+13I chuck out about 50% of my stuff once per year. It's not hard to get along with less. People and information is what you have to keep, the rest is fluff.
    • greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -4/+3Hey YCW - better to not acquire than to chuck, right ;-)
    • stfucupcake, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1I'm right there with you, yellowcakewalk.

      If you don't like it pass it on to a friend or bag it up and take it down to the thrift shop.
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -4/+32Everything you own is pre-garbage:

    "You're home is a garbage processing center where new things are purchased and slowly demoted through various stages of trashification until you're done.

    Starts out: you bring it home. Put it on the kitchen table. You read the instructions, you tell everyone in the house about it. And then some time goes by and you realize you're not going to be so keen on drying out fruit and storing it in your basement (as you thought you were going to be.) So therefore the object is demoted to the closet where it lands on the floor. You start stepping on it to reach newer things that are just beginning on their journey to junk." -- Seinfeld

  • GregViers, on 06/25/2008, -5/+2"environmentally friendly" implies "more environmentally friendly than other products". Obviously products don't *help* the environment. But if we used environmentally friendly-enough products, we could find a healthy balance with our environment.

    Solar power vs. Coal power
    Cloth Grocery bags vs. Plastic grocery bags
    Lunch items in tupperware, brought to work in a pail vs. lunch items in plastic bags brought to work in a paper bag
    Electric coupe vs. gas-guzzling SUV

    etc.

    The best thing we can do as individuals, corporations and governments is work to make the alternatives more economically viable so that they can replace the older technologies, which can then be banned.
    • OffPiste, on 06/25/2008, -7/+3"which can then be banned."

      Because banning things is what changes people's attitudes.

      Ahhh Democrats and their failed policies.
  • trumpydumpy, on 06/25/2008, -3/+12I am already living with less than 100 things, unless you count my roommate's possesions which I use as my own.
  • ObamaWins08, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3Ebay it... then someone else will need to Ebay it at some point to reduce their possessions down to 100 at some point.

    Circle of Life, baby, yeah!
  • wildfire, on 06/25/2008, -2/+22There goes my Asian midget porno-night marathon...
    • sockpuppets, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3If you splice them altogether then it's only one thing.
    • restlessmouse, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6That makes me want to touch one of my things
  • dpcamp, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5Sad, i don't think that would be much of a reduction for me
  • sgiffy, on 06/25/2008, -4/+18Why would I want to? My ***** brings me happiness and enjoyment, lets me do important things, and looks pretty. I also like to use things for as long as I can and to buy things that are well built.
    • Narpas, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7My sentiments exactly, with an addition: Simplicity doesn't make me feel good. Tidiness doesn't make me feel good. Change is nice sometimes, but it's also really relaxing to have a steady routine. Nix your feel good garbage, I enjoy life cluttered.
    • spriggig, on 06/26/2008, -8/+2No, your ***** is just *****. It has no special magical power to "bring you happiness and enjoyment". Unless you live in Special Magic Land. DO you live in Special Magic Land?
      • Jennefah, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3If not living in Special Magic Land means I can't enjoy my "*****" then I'm never leaving said land.

        Besides, I can't play piano without my piano... therefore the piano (which is a possession of mine, or part of my "*****") helps to give me enjoyment and happiness. Also occasional free food/slyly nicked food from buffet-type places at gig type things.
      • sgiffy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Well right now I am enjoying myself on the internet, which is being brought to me through stuff, while I sit on a comfy couch and drink a nice glass of scotch.

        Having seen a lot of people in my life with absolutely nothing, and a lot of people with absolutely everything. I can tell you that, while stuff is not a guarantee of happiness, it sure can help. Mostly by giving one the means to pursue things they want.
    • mike17032, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4No *****, there is a reason I go to work 5 days a week. It sure as ***** isnt to sit in an empty house and jack off to zen *****.

      I love my *****, and it does make me happy. Anyone who cant see the joy in owning nice things is just pissed off because they cant afford them.
      • Pronoiac, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I wish I could give you more diggs.
    • brad3378, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4The author obviously wants to buy your ***** at discounted prices.
    • FFXIfrohike, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3You, sir, are entirely too rational.

      By the way, did anyone read that writer's bio? She essentially sits around on her duff while her kid is at school and reads blogs all day & trolls green-what-its-name.com. Maybe she should recycle her computer...
  • beesaretasty, on 06/25/2008, -3/+6The green revolution will kill the readability of the web.
  • conostrov, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2I love this idea, and minimalism is a great lifestyle choice; but I am not a huge fan the logic of destroying consumerism as a major goal of environmentalism.

    In my mind, there no reason we(I) should have to stop benefiting from technological advance just because it has a big impact when combine with everyone elses. The impact is a problem, but if we can think full cycle; we can take less, use more, and be symbiotic with other species. Which is a shift I think will come out of consumerism. I could be wrong though, so power to the pioneers of eco-minimalism.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3We need to shift our paradigm from seeking economic "growth" (quantity of output) to economic "development" (quality and efficiency of output). As long as we measure our success in terms of growth, the human race is screwed, because we're in a finite system. The seminal book on this is Herman Daly's "Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development." I'm reading it now and highly recommend it. It will frustrate the crap out of you when you hear traditional economists' reaction to the idea that the economy is a subset of the ecosystem ("that's the wrong way to look at it" and just call everything that doesn't fit your model an "externality" -- jeesh).

      Here's the book at Amazon:
      http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Growth-Economics-Sust ...
  • tmyprod, on 06/25/2008, -2/+37For the sake of this article, what constitutes a thing? If I have a computer, desk, chair, and a notepad w/ 100 pages do I have 4 "things" or 103 things"? Or let's say I have 5 lenses for my camera and I put them all in 1 case do I have 6 "things" or only ?. My car easily consists of thousands of "things".

    The concept is good but the execution is ***** stupid. and I hate the word "thing".

    • Haoie, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Maybe it's best to discard the arbitrary number of 100.

      I think the focus of the article was to just to try to convince people to live simple lives. Less worry about material possessions, etc.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Like "stuff," "thing" a great word. These are two of the most useful words in the english language. They're like universal nouns.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2My girlfriend and I have had this same conversation after a recent stuff purge and similar article. I ended up getting more use out of thinking in terms of pounds or cubic feet. We got rid of about 160 cubic feet of stuff and it felt great. I, too, had trouble figuring out what constitutes a thing. My wallet has 20 things in it... etc.

      But the idea is a great starting point and does emphasize a truly minimalist ideal, even if the reality of life (like stuff you need to do your work) puts you well over the 100 item limit.
    • spriggig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Maybe Thing 1 and Thing 2 can straighten this out for us?
    • JackHarkness, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2I think in the essence of the project a "thing" would be a whole independant "ecosystem". ie a car is one thing, A pair of socks is one thing(It would be kinda odd to only wear one), a camera kit is one thing. Although eventually when you finaly reach the 100 thing goal and you want to/ relise you can live without somethings that have survived the cut you may decide to count individual lenses (especialy expensive telephoto ones).
  • jaybol, on 06/25/2008, -4/+6go with 100 beers and as you finish each one you can add a new one. maybe 98 beers, a bank card and a drivers license
    • greenlight2001, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1Recipe for disaster right there.
    • phybere, on 06/26/2008, -3/+298 bottles of beer on the wall...
    • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Buy a barrel and empty all the beers into it.

      Presto, one thing.
  • Kuanyin, on 06/25/2008, -11/+1Hey, I blogged about this today on my WYM blog and added this link! Love this quote...wish I had found it to add to the post!
  • ileftfark, on 06/25/2008, -4/+73Opening line: "As consumers, we tend to consume a lot."

    It probably was a decent article, but I just couldn't go on.
    • FFXIfrohike, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5The word "thing" and the arbitrary 100 pretty much prevented me from reading the article at all. Sorry you had to suffer needlessly.
    • antipoet, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3You did the right thing.
    • topace3000, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Didn't get past the first two words myself.
  • itsthebrod, on 06/25/2008, -6/+5You know, it's stupid ***** like this why I avoid environmentalist movements. What a completely idiotic concept. I like my things and there's nothing is going to take all my crap away from me.
    • tehbored, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5No body is trying to take anything from you. It's just a "challenge" that no one is making you accept.
    • mparker7410, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2I'M GOING TO TAKE ALL YOUR PRECIOUS CRAP!!!
      • mparker7410, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I know you dugg me down, but I'm still coming for your crap! I'd like it boxed and labeled neatly.
    • spriggig, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1I'm posting your street address on Craigslist right nao!
  • Irfit, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5Yes , i can .
    I just don't want to. What a stupid idea.
    The goal of all the "green" stuff should be doing the same stuff we are doing today without getting the same carbon footprint we are getting today.
    • mike17032, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2But thats not the goal of the greentards, most of them are about pushing their anti-corporate policies. The green ***** is just an excuse they use to try and force people to give up things they dont approve of.
    • GreenGrassyNoel, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1just give it a try. If you own stuff you haven't used in a while, just get rid of it. Personally I've been working on the closets. there is crap in there i haven't used for at least a year.
      Dont' get me wrong, i love my games and gadgets but there are lots of things that are just taking up space.
  • eekzee, on 06/25/2008, -7/+7lame
  • MichDdot, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3that would be hard for many but it makes sense
  • bullcutter, on 06/25/2008, -3/+13"More and more people are saying they can. "

    More and more people are hypocritical idiots.
    • topace3000, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Can and will are different things.
  • Tyrghast, on 06/25/2008, -2/+8College student here. I think it's safe to say we can cut that down to living with 50 things.
    • Narpas, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Yep. And then you get out of the dorms and get 200-250 things, it's SO MUCH GODDAMN NICER.
    • thegreatgazoo, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2That's handy. If you live in the dorm you don't own a bed, a desk, and any of the other furniture you get.

      I think I had more than 50 books in my dorm room.
  • wedges, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1does every article of clothing count individually? or lumped? if you count my clothes as 1, i can totally do it.
  • TipsyMcStumbles, on 06/25/2008, -10/+6I have an itchy butt.
    • burjzyntski, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2my knee-pit itches.
      damn stinging insects with their wings/pincers/proboscis/etc.
    • nedzeve, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2It might be staph. You might want to see a doctor.
    • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2Do itchy butts count as a thing?
  • Owwmykneecap, on 06/25/2008, -4/+15I don't care what more and more people are saying.
    • marx2k, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1...says the digger...
    • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2I care if they're saying something smart; I don't care when they're not.
  • SundayBrunch, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3can I combine things into interpretive art and claim them as one thing?
  • sockpuppets, on 06/25/2008, -4/+12The problem here is that the possessor of the one thing I need keeps buying more things.

    Thanks, Girlfriend.
    • Ikulus, on 06/26/2008, -6/+2Diggers don't have girlfriends.
      • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Some of us are married and have kids.

        All of which buy things, FWIW.
    • gryphon50, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Those don't count. Those are her things.
  • SundayBrunch, on 06/26/2008, -4/+5In any case, I'm 25 years old, I ride a motorcycle and have maybe 30 things. Let me repeat that, I'm 25 years old. where is my ***** brake? Oh and yeah, you guessed it, I'm single, and live in an apartment the size of a closet, I think it use to be a closet, and yeah you guessed right again, there are dirty dishes in the sink.
    *****.
    • marx2k, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10:In any case, I'm 25 years old, I ride a motorcycle and have maybe 30 things. Let me repeat that, I'm 25 years old. where is my ***** brake?"

      On the motorcycle, I hope
    • phybere, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11On a motorcycle, the brakes are usually located on the handle bars.
    • sostoudt, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4how many dishes?
    • Aidje, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2A sink in a closet? That's unusual.
    • nedzeve, on 06/26/2008, -5/+4You sound like a loser. Have you considered putting both barrels of a shotgun in your mouth and making the world a better place?
      • SundayBrunch, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You're probably one of them people who own 100 things. if you could like give me atleast 25 of your extra things, it would mean a world to me. I'll take anything. Anything I can carry in a backpack, you know, with the motorcycle and all.
        • nedzeve, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I definitely have more than 100 things, so I can probably help you out. Let me go through my stuff, and I'll see what I come up with. I'll focus on finding small things that will help you get you number up, but won't weigh you down too much on the bike.
  • wrathchilde, on 06/25/2008, -4/+13I don't need anything. Except this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that's all I need. And these matches. The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control and the paddle ball. And this lamp. The ashtray, this paddle game and the remote control and the lamp and that's all I need. And that's all I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one - I need this. The paddle game, and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches, for sure. And this. And that's all I need. The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair.
    • Recidivus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Wow, haven't thought of that movie in a long time.
    • marx2k, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Ahh, when Steve Martin was funny
    • yttikolleh, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1wow I'm so glad someone quoted that :D
  • D3koy, on 06/25/2008, -7/+21 laptop, 97 pairs of boxers, 1 box of kleenex (replace as needed), 1 bottle of ________ (replace as needed)
  • Khast, on 06/25/2008, -2/+12Everyone could easily live with 100 or less possessions... Though the real question...would I want to? Probably not.
    • spriggig, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2So...you would rather die than live without your possessions? You're doing a fine job of supporting the point of the article.
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7I wish I had 100 things.
  • restlessmouse, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2I can do that, if you count a whole houseful of crap as a "thing".
  • itsthemechanic, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8I have, for ages: Backpack, sleeping bag, sleeping mat, digital camera, 12" laptop, a pair of decent headphones, 5x T-Shirt, 5x socks, 5x shorts, 2x pants, one pair of trainers and one pair of hiking boots. Toiletries, a book or two, a tent, that's it. I lived like that for about 2 years and I didn't really miss anything.

    Minimalism is awesome.. try simplifying your life sometime, it's incredibly liberating. You can say ***** this place and be fully packed and on your way somewhere else in 15 minutes or less.
    • greenlight2001, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11"5x T-Shirt, 5x socks, 2x pants..."

      Whoa! Someone is a fatty! 5X shirts? Chirst, I only wear a L...
    • Jeffler, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6So you've been living in a tent for the last two years? Where ARE you right now?
    • mhender, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Interesting...
      So do you have a job? house? girlfriend? where do you get the internet from? where do you do your laundry? how do you cook and eat? Do you have any hobbies? Car/bike -- how do you get around? How do you communicate with your family? Where do you sit while you eat and cook?
      I don't know how 'liberating' it would be to not establish myself in a plot of land and raise a solid family.
      But hey, if that's how you enjoy life, I can't judge. Good on you for finding what makes you happy.

  • iamcool, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3It should not be about living with 100 items as it should be about living in simplicity.
  • nastronomical, on 06/26/2008, -14/+8stupidity of liberals and hippies
    • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I'm a moderate (voted for Bush in 2000) and drive a Mercedes (so not a hippy)... and I think this idea has a lot of validity to it. The stuff you own ends up owning you.

      Oh wait, I recognize your name, nastro. I think we had this debate already. Sorry, nevermind. :)
  • Zzone, on 06/26/2008, -5/+7worst idea ever.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1You clearly haven't heard many ideas. There are way worse. Like doing upgrades in a place you rent. Or confessing to adultery. Damn, yes, there are way worse ideas. And the Bewitched move... whose idea was that? And Shia with monkeys. I could go on and on.
    • aussiessuck, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Not the worst idea, but somwhere between worst and sub par.

      I'd have to say 4th sequals of anything is a several times worser Idea than throwing out those really handy things you don't use very often into landfill. Just so you can beg/borrow/buy it again 6 mths down the line.

      If it's not in the way, may as well keep it.
  • tehbored, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Wow, I'm not sure if this idea could be more vague if it tried.
  • DaDrake, on 06/26/2008, -6/+1Number one thing all diggers will keep is their fleshlight.
  • Digitel, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5I have over 100 things on my desk....
  • Greenergrass, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2100 things seem a lot but at the same time very few. I'm not materialist but I don't know I could do that but sure, we can buy less and give more.
  • jzuska, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3I have 100 things in my computer, so no.
  • yellowswan, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11I have hundreds of books, why should I part with them?
    • yttikolleh, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I know I wondered that too, I hang on to books, and am proud of my little library
    • JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3You killer of trees, denier of bird habitat and all around Carbon sinner!

      Repent! Please see a carbon credit company to wash away your sins.
    • llzackll, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0take a trip to the library.
  • stfucupcake, on 06/26/2008, -2/+599 magic, 99 ranged, 98 att, 97 def, 93 str.
    • bsmeteronhigh2, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0Runescape reference deserves a digg!
  • ashfish, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3If my DVD and CD collection wasn't so big yeah I could. See if the RIAA/MPAA would just let me pirate my music and movies I wouldn't need hard copies and my carbon footprint wouldn't be so big.
    • staeiou, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1You could always download them from a legal source - iTunes, Amazon, etc.
      • ashfish, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I'd rather just buy the CDs from the artists/record labels that I do like since most of the music I like isn't mainstream anyways. More money going directly to the people I want it to.
  • mhender, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5I'm pretty sure this would ruin the entire economy. More disposable income means more purchases which means more production which means more jobs. It's a cycle that America has run on since the beginning.
    • JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah, its an American product. The rest of the world makes their own clothes, eats from their backyard garden, milks their cows, and rides a bike to generate electricity.

      If we could only be more like them.

      You want to see shopping? Go to Asia, Thailand actually has a week long national shopping holiday.

    • vonmises05, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0Wow! A Keynesian! Savings in the economy is what leads to more production, because a society that saves money tends to invest more, and make the production process stronger and produces goods in a cheaper and more efficient way. Oops, you're wrong! The magical "cycle" you speak of has not been running since the beginning of America; the spend with disposable income came about at the turn of last century; America was based on frugality. I concur with the basic tenants of this article but for vastly differnet reasons than that which the author indended.
      • mhender, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2The industrial revolution lead to the ability to generate more than a company could sell. Items that were made-to-order were now being dished out by the thousands. They then used surplus cash to start advertising their product. This creates a drastic switch in the economy.
        While you type like some sort of pretentious douchebag, you fail to miss the point that if everyone bought less stuff, millions would be out of jobs.
        And unless I'm misinterpreting the ***** that spews out of your mind -- saving money does not necessarily lead to production. From what we're witnessing today, people are opting to save money on gas by not buying big trucks and SUV's -- which is why GM has a huge battle on their plate regarding closing down one of their Truck factories here in the North. People don't like paying $4/gallon for gas, so they don't buy these trucks. The factories which make these trucks employ tens of thousands, who are then out of jobs.
        I don't even know why I bothered to reply to you, you sound like a real hit at a parties with your pretentious douchebaggery. Welcome to my block list, Mr. Douche.
    • JackHarkness, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1you do realise when they raise intrest rates they're trying to curb your spending because the economy is going too fast(too much inflation ect)?
  • Ransack, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1i can fit everything i own in my honda.. well except my pinball machine...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.