Can Simplicity Go Too Far?

Reader's of this blog know that I'm a big fan of simplicity. But like anything else, simplicity faces the law of diminishing returns. In other words, simplicity can be a great thing to a certain point, but beyond that point, the costs start to outweigh the benefits.

While I think most people err on the side of having too much stuff, I also think it's possible to take the notion of simplicity to the point where it becomes a burden rather than something that brings greater freedom. When reading this New York Times article, it sounds like this couple may have gone past that point:

Like many other young couples, Aimee and Jeff Harris spent the first years of their marriage eagerly accumulating stuff: cars, furniture, clothes, appliances and, after a son and a daughter came along, toys, toys, toys.

Now they are trying to get rid of it all, down to their fancy wedding bands. Chasing a utopian vision of a self-sustaining life on the land as partisans of a movement some call voluntary simplicity, they are donating virtually all their possessions to charity and hitting the road at the end of May.

Their rings — his gold band and her one-carat diamond — may be “red-paper-clipped,” Mrs. Harris said: bartered for something better that could in turn be bartered for something better still, as in the Internet celebrity Kyle MacDonald’s tale of a paper clip that ultimately produced a house.

“They don’t fit us anymore,” Mr. Harris said. Sure enough, his band was loose on his finger, but that was not what he meant. “They don’t fit our lifestyle,” he explained.

I wish the Harris' well, but getting rid of their wedding rings sounds like it's going a little too far. I couldn't help but feel a little sad reading that.

A few thoughts came to me while reading this article. First, it seems that many people in the 'simplicity movement' seem to think in terms of absolutes rather than relatives. That certainly seems to be true for that Harris'. Rather than taking steps to move towards a simpler life, they are trying to make a massive push to get rid of everything they own in order to have the simplest life of all. In so doing, I wonder if they will miss out on finding their optimal point of simplicity?

Another thing I find interesting is that many people who advocate simplicity also advocate self-sustaining lifestyles, which typically means things like living away from society and dong things like growing your own food. What many call self-sufficiency, I term "personal autarky".

As someone who loves camping and visiting remote regions of the world, I can understand the appeal of quietness and isolation. But as an economist, I also recognize that much of what is being advocated is ultimately wasteful of resources, both physical and human -- taking up much more time, energy, and effort to accomplish or produce what could have more easily (and cheaply) been obtained through trading with others. Ironically, self-sufficiency is in many ways as the opposite of sustainability. If everyone were to live like this, we would end up either using up far more resources than we do today or producing far less, and quite probably both. Thanks to the benefits of trade and the marvels of the market, we are increasingly able to do far more with far less.

I've been to isolated areas of the world (including tribal areas in the Amazon jungle) where people really were living in a self-sustaining way. It is a hard life and without exception, all societies which live this way are incredibly poor. True self-sufficiency is a great recipe for poverty.

Rather than focusing on self-sufficiency, I advocate simplicity as a means of freeing up time and financial resources to accomplish the personal goals you have and provide more options to live life in the way you best see fit. I see simplicity as a great way to enable this. I see self-sufficiency as counter-productive to this goal.

I am increasingly of the mindset that to live the most simple lifestyle of all would probably entail living in a small apartment in a city, near public transportation. This would keep energy costs low, take up a small geographic footprint, allow you to live without a car (potentially reducing your carbon footprint), put you in close proximity to many others with whom you can form relationships with and who you can engage in for the exchange of goods, services, and ideas -- making all of you better off.

I am currently living in an urban environment for the first time in my life and in many ways my life has never been simpler. I recently went for over a month without driving. I can walk to school, restaurants, and stores. I live a block from the subway which takes me to work, allowing me to read on the way. I live a very short drive to some wonderful parks, and a 20-minute subway ride to some of the finest museums in the world (which just happen to be free to visit).

There is no doubt that many people are far busier in the city than they are in the countryside and in this sense, things are not simpler here. But wouldn't the simplest way to achieve simplicity be to chose to opt out of the busyness rather than to isolate yourself from others on a permanent basis?

I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this.

In the meantime, you can read more about the Harris' progress towards the simple life on their blog. You can also read more about my own thoughts on simplicity here.