Anchors Aweigh: The Costs of Accumulation

 

     Almost ten years ago (December 31, 2015), I wrote about "the houseboat philosophy". A summary would be that houseboats can only have so much weight on them before they sink. Thus, when one thing comes on board, something must leave. (Of course, a little allowance is made for temporary dinner guests.)

     Of late, I seem to have been seeing an awful lot of advertisements for storage units. And I don't watch many programs with advertisements. It seems similar to those advertisements for stomach upset or feelings of bloat or being overfull. They try to address the symptoms and divert you away from the actual problems. Overeat? Have a pill to fight against the effects. Eat less? Don't even think about it (literally).

     In the area of storage, there are always times when such is truly reasonable and necessary. Someone dies and their living quarters needs to be emptied to allow it to be sold or occupied by the next folks. No time to do the sorting, selling, and finding other places for items. And sometimes the storage may be used for something that is really used -- but not all of the time. Ski equipment in the summer is probably only excess stuff to have on hand. Camping equipment may only be used during the non-winter months.

     But, most of the time, it is a matter of accumulation and overflow. Once again, if that overflow was treated as something to be dealt with in a timely fashion then temporary storage might be prudent and useful. But often it isn't.

     For many of us, those items that pile up each have memories associated with them. How can I possibly throw away my kindergarten report card (from 60 years ago)? This was Great-Aunt Mabel's baby blanket, we have to keep that -- while none of the next generation have any memories of their distant relative.

     Personally, one of my largest dilemmas is the amount of photos accumulated. Current, and future, generations may have no idea of this problem as almost all such is now done digitally. Get more and more storage. We're using this method -- but we still have thousands of photos that are not digitized. Photos of your grandmother as a baby. Digitize and trash it? Sure -- not easy. And if not annotated then the next generations will not have a clue as to who any of the people in those sepia-colored photographs might have been.

     But accumulation has both its direct and indirect costs. Whether it is internal space or external storage, the accumulation requires space. Space costs money. If you are looking for something that is among 100 cubic feet (or 3 cubic meters), scattered all over, it is much easier to search for that item among 35 cubic feet (or a single cubic meter). Clutter is hand-in-hand with inefficiency of searches. I have "replaced" a lot of items that I have been certain that I had (and, possibly, later found) leading to duplication and unnecessary purchases. This is both frustrating and expensive.

     Not everyone is happy to work towards minimalism -- nor is our economy oriented towards that philosophy. But, a bit of work towards eliminating excess (with both food and possessions) can make our lives easier and, perhaps, allow a bit more spreading of wealth among those who have need of it.

Decluttering: When Less is More

 

     Once upon a time (about 8 years ago), I wrote about something I called "the houseboat principle". In sum, it was the idea that -- on a houseboat -- every time you brought something onboard you had to get rid of something. Otherwise the houseboat would eventually sink. Just like within newspaper/media topics and fashions, some ideas float back to the surface on a periodic basis.

     As part of our ongoing downsizing to prepare to move into a more permanent retirement  place, we continue to strive to eliminate the excess. However, excess is difficult to define and even more difficult to do something about. Why?

     The true core reason (I believe) is an underlying fear of change. There are excuses. These include "I might use that again in the future", "I paid a lot of money for that", and "I remember when I got that, it was at a store with great aunt Lulu".

     For different people, reasons for reluctance will vary. I fall primarily (I believe -- hard to clearly see oneself and our motives) into the "I might use that again ..." category. I can successfully argue myself out of the other categories. I have already spent the money so I won't be getting it back -- and it makes no difference whether I have given it to someone else who did NOT pay for it. I have recently recognized that taking a photo of something that triggers a memory can provide a much simpler, and less space consuming, trigger for the memory -- thus, I can take a photo and get rid of the object.

     As I said, I fall into that category of "I might use it again". And the hardest part is that it is SOMETIMES true. I have picked a book, that I last read 20 years ago, off of the shelf and read it again. I may actually make use of that pipe wrench I purchased for a plumbing repair 15 years ago. I have had to repurchase items that I know that I have given away in the past years. I have dozens of cables -- some of which would only be useful on equipment that hasn't been made in 20 years -- but I did need one ONCE. All true. Relevant? I am not sure.

     I have boxes of things in the garage that I have not opened, and accessed, for 25 years. How likely am I to use those contents again? Do I even know what exists within the box?

     But why? Why bother? There are people who are quite content to keep renting storage facilities for the next batch of overflow materials. For us, the prime reason is knowing that we will have less space in the future. But that also means less to move -- saving time, energy, and money. It is also difficult to argue with the likelihood that you can find something more easily looking through 30 items than looking for it among 300 objects -- no matter how well organized (even in electronic files).

     How about you? Do you have boxes you haven't opened in 10 years? Are you running out of room? Did you need a loan to afford a sufficiently large moving truck? What advantages are there for you to have lots of stuff around that you don't use? What advantages can you see in NOT having them around?

Simple does not mean Easy

 

     "Pay attention", "Love your neighbor as you do yourself", "Don't stress out over the little things", "forget what hurt you but never forget what it taught you". "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Such wonderful adages. There are business segments that have a primary product of manufacturing posters, plaques, and other items to spread these adages (and proverbs) far and wide. We can read them and say "of course, that is obvious". But, if one examines society and talk among ourselves, we find that even though the adages may be very easy to state -- and, perhaps, understand -- they are not put into action very often.

     "Love your neighbor as you do yourself." One of the difficulties in putting adages into action is that we are so awfully good at taking them apart and reducing them to small edge conditions. "Love your neighbor". Who is our neighbor? Are our neighbors the people who live next door with whom we have never spoken -- or are they people within our common religious community who are neighbors of spirit even if they live in a different city? Are they people that look like us, pray like us, have the same amount of spendable income as we do?

     Or are they everyone? In that case, it can lead to a more active separation of people -- leading some people to say that only this set of people are really people and the others are not really people. One of the first actions taken by any group wanting to initiate hostilities towards, or take advantage of, another group is to start emphasizing differences and start to separate them from the "correct" pool of people.

     "Don't stress out over the little things." What is a little thing? It surely varies between people -- one person's "little" thing may be another person's "big" thing. Or, if looked at from the view point of someone examining our lives from the vantage of Alpha Centauri, maybe everything we do is a little thing? But such an evaluation must surely be from a subjective, personal, viewpoint. And is it stress that will keep us actively working with the "thing" -- or is it stress that will cause us to neglect other "things" and negatively affect our health?

     "Pay attention". Oh boy! Sure, we want to pay attention but it is physically, and neurologically, impossible to pay attention to everything. When someone says "pay attention" they usually are saying "pay attention to me" or "pay attention to the thing I have assigned you to do". But those don't make good adages.

     "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". OK. Sounds reasonable. But, it is similar to someone giving you directions such as "turn left a street before you see a white church on the right". Unless you are aware of the situation for which you can enact the prevention, there really isn't much to be done. Sometimes you may be aware but, in that case, what you are really doing is preparation -- not prevention.

     Perhaps you have a favorite adage that sounds great, you'd love to follow it, but it just doesn't seem to happen? Or you have one that is not only simple to say and remember but also easy to follow?

     Personally, I work with a line from an old Christmas movie ("Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"). "Just put one foot in front of the other and soon you'll be walking out the door." Sure hope I am pointing towards the door as it will be a lot harder walking through the wall.

Simplicity: the benefits of lack of complexity

 

     I have been around computers a long time. Long enough to remember when 64K of memory (in total -- not RAM) was considered a large system. Long enough to have to toggle in a boot program for the paper tape reader to allow the main program to be run. Long enough that, between queuing up for the card punch, waiting for your program to be executed by the mainframe, and then getting the printouts from the run -- you might be only able to run your program three times in an eight hour period.

    (Not as long as the true pioneers like Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing, Kathleen Booth, Wang An, Grace Hopper and such. Please forgive me if I left out your own favorites.)

     Now, I'm not going to say those days were "better". I like getting streaming videos (though I will never be in favor of the many meetings that could have been done with a few memos and emails). I like reliable email networks, transmission, and reception. I like online shopping. I like having much of the transcribable data of the world available with searches and networked museums, libraries, and academies.

     But there were some advantages arising from the lack of options and complex systems.

• With very limited memory, it was necessary to write efficient code.
  
  
• With slow turnaround, it was necessary to try to anticipate every problem, and edge condition, that your program might encounter -- in advance as part of the design.
  
  
• It was relatively easy -- and usually necessary -- to understand the basics of the entire system from the power that entered the hardware to the hardware components to the initial boot program, the peripherals, and the way the operating system works.

     I am a generalist because I WANT to continue to be a generalist. There are rarely paid positions posted for generalists. So, it was necessary to focus on some area. I became a telecom/datacom specialist. As I continued my career, I found that people interactions became more and more interesting and so I started to try to become the best servant leader that I could be -- a goal that I will never reach but which will continue to be out there as a target.

     But, at heart, I am still a generalist -- now extended to include the people (people's actions and interactions, UI, UX, etc.) Being such is conceptually very useful -- but job listings are virtually non-existent. Creation of new types of products usually requires knowledge of multiple areas (and, often, sciences) brought together. Generalists can be of great use in such.

     Nevertheless, the economy continues to move towards complexity and specialization.

     Within a computer app that faces a human user, a goal is to present a simple, intuitive, interface. Complexity of possibilities makes that much harder and, in part because of legal issues, every version of a particular program (word processing, spreadsheets, voice apps, video apps, ...) has to have a different interface (sometimes just a bit of a diversion, sometimes completely different).

     The goal is still to make it simple for the user to use without sacrificing flexibility and functionality. When that is achieved, it is almost definitely a balancing act with extreme complexity "under the hood". One could say the complexity is of the system as a whole. When the user-side becomes simpler, the provider-side becomes more complex. This often applies to mechanical objects, and other systems, as well.

     But what about those advantages of a simple program? They move from necessities to desirabilities. I would say that it is STILL useful to write efficient code. It is DEFINITELY (especially in terms of security in our current world) useful to anticipate problems, edge conditions, and vulnerabilities as part of the design. And, in order to create new types of programs, I am of the opinion that knowledge of the complete system is of considerable usefulness.

     Most examples have been concerning computer systems since that is my field. But such can be applied to civil engineering, mechanical engineering, business structuring, and so forth. There will be advantages with simple systems and complexity will involve trade-offs between various components.

Digital property: An opportunity for a marketing advantage

 

     I am in the process of downsizing -- primarily because the next place to which we move will be smaller (that place may be leaving the US) but also because having less means less to move, less to store, and less to be aware of. It is a form of simplification but some of that clutter is moved to the digital space rather than true elimination.

     I have had thousands of books (my highest total was around 3,500) and I have had hundreds of laserdiscs and, then, hundreds of DVDs (with a few Blu-Ray tossed in). My music library has been a more gentle transition as CDs became prevalent before I collected much -- but I still have a hundred LPs and 1,000+ CDs. I have moved from one format to another -- being blessed to have sufficient resources to be able to play this "keep up with technology" game. Moving all to digital is obviously the most compact (as of now) method for storage of text, graphics, audio, and video media.

     So, I am making what I expect to be the final transition of media for my collections. I have already found new homes for a couple thousand of my books and plan to find homes for almost all of the rest (I will retain a hundred or two of my most cherished ones). Our children have agreed to take some of them -- though the more recent generations have the wise tendency to not have lots of bulky things. (They have done the same "keep up with technology" game as I have -- but with videogames.)

     As I find homes for my physical media, some are "replaced" with digital copies. It is somewhat nuts for me to do that as my wife (who is much more practical and reasonable than I am in many ways) rents and borrows movies and books. But, as is true of many in my generation, I have been raised to consume and accumulate and recognition of that situation does not make it easy to live one's life differently.

     I mentioned above that I expect to continue to have a couple of hundred books. But CDs are hard to find new homes for -- and our children have not made a decision as to whether they want the CDs. I am keeping them for the time being. One thousand CDs weigh about 250 pounds (113.4 kg).

     A previous blog talked about the Houseboat Philosphy which expands on the idea of a houseboat (on Lake Union in Washington, to be specific) requiring the gross weight to stay below a certain limit. If more comes on, something goes off. 250 pounds of something that I have backed up in digital content seems like extra weight.

     But here we come to the "rub". All of the content I have imported into iTunes is now in Apple accessible format. If I get rid of the CDs and Apple (not likely but totally possible) decides to stop supporting audio media then I have lost my music collection. I was poking around a certain enormous online shopping site on which I have been a customer for 25 years. I was thinking about possibly dropping audiobook service. As I was looking through the possibilities, I came across the "by the way" fact that if I closed my account, I would no longer have access to any digital content -- a thousand (and still growing) books would no longer be "mine". If Apple decided to stop hosting digital movies, my 1000+ movies would be gone.

     If I have physical copies of books, records, CDs, DVDs, (laserdiscs, LPs) then they are mine. I can sell them, loan them, give them away, lose them, do a "Fahrenheit 451" on them or anything else I want. If I have a digital version of that content that is hosted by a company with its own format or theft control code then I am really only "leasing" the content. Digital books often cost the same as paperbacks -- but I have only very limited loan capabilities. If I die, my account must stay alive -- albeit as a "zombie" account -- for any of my family to continue to access "my" digital content and that is at the discretion of the digital storage provider.

     It is totally reasonable for a digital service provider to place restrictions on content such that it cannot be duplicated without additional royalties and service charges. It is also totally reasonable that, especially if the price is the same or greater, I should have the same ownership attributes for my digital property -- to give away, loan, or sell. I am certain that the companies can find someway to satisfy both needs. They just need incentive to do such. A company that finds a way to do that will immediately have a significant marketing advantage over all the other digital content providers. If no company will step up to the challenge, then legislation may be needed to protect property rights for the consumer.

A divergent possibility : Reuse or Recycle is a fork in the road

    The three "R"s include the areas of Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling (with the addition of the preliminary "Rethink" of the Houseboat philosophy). But how is a decision made whether to resuse an article or to recycle it?

    Generally, this is a matter of how easy is it to do one or another. To reuse, it must be able to be used -- it must be in working order. A book is presumably able to be reused easily unless it is damaged. An old sofa might be moderately damaged -- needing a hole to be repaired or a leg put back on. A piece of electronic equipment may require a diagnosis followed by repair. There is a sliding scale of ease of reuse. No work is needed up to potentially quite a bit of work (perhaps as much as creating the item originally).

    Sometimes, repair can become part of a hobby or enterprise. People may take great pleasure in the work needed to repair a vintage car -- and the parts and labor can be considered an investment. The same can be true for people who buy a house in need of repair and succeed in renovating it such that it can be lived in, or resold, in a much better condition (and higher price).

    But, what about a toaster? There are some "vintage" toasters that can rise in value -- but most of them are "commodities" -- able to be replaced easily or replaced with "improved" characteristics. Is it worthwhile to repair? Is it a part of an internal enjoyment to repair? Possibly for some but for most it is not worthwhile. So, we hit an economic tradeoff which is very dependent on the local cost of merchandise and the local cost of labor.

    Let's say that a new working toaster is priced at $30. A used working toaster can bring $5 at a flea market or local swapmeet. If the cost of labor to repair toasters is $20/hour and it takes two hours to repair it, then making a non-working toaster able to be sold would cost $40 and only sell for $5 giving a net loss of $35. Who would decide to do that? Hopefully, the person would find a good place to recycle the toaster.

    However, if we are in another place where a new working toaster is priced at $20 and a used working toaster can bring $7, we may have a different situation. What if labor costs are only $2/hour? A non-working toaster can be repaired for $4 and sold for $7 -- giving a total profit of $3. We can see that the local prices and local labor costs make a big difference as to whether something is reused.

    Another factor that comes into play for reuse versus recycling is convenience. If I have a paperbook that is not severely damaged I have a choice for reuse by taking it to a used bookstore or recycling it via a curbside pick up. If it takes me 40 minutes (roundtrip) to take that book to the bookstore then recycling becomes an attractive option. If I have a box of books, however, the time needed to take them to the used bookstore becomes less of an overhead. Convenience and net savings come into play -- plus the value one gives to their own time.

    As an umbrella over the choices is the priority one gives to the environment. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle are the three rules but they only apply to people who care about the effects of NOT doing these things. Some may care because of the money involved with not doing it -- some may care because of the environmental costs -- and some may not care at all. What is my time worth in choices needed to help maintain a good environment? Do I care about the state of my surroundings when the next generation is growing up? These are underlying questions with individual answers.

The Houseboat philosophy : The Four "R"s

   Once upon a time, I lived in Seattle -- loved it there because it was an environment in which I could walk, or take public transportation, to 80% of the places that I wanted to go (exceptions being grocery shopping -- mainly out of laziness). A pedestrian-friendly city gives a natural interest in adjusting one's life, in general, to the environment and trying to live within the environment rather than take it over.

   My wife-to-be was taking courses at the local University of Washington (Udub) and one of her teachers invited us to a lunch on her houseboat that was docked on Lake Union. While there, and conversing on various topics, she introduced the "houseboat philosophy". A houseboat has a certain capacity -- it weighs a certain amount and it can support a certain amount without sinking. So, unless you want to start swimming for shore during the next rainstorm (when the lake becomes definitely non-calm) you recognize that clutter is not something that you can tolerate.

   When something comes onto the houseboat, something has to go off. In a way, this is parallel to time organization of "most important now". What do I most want to have around me? If I bring something aboard, what do I want to take off and what will I do with it? Of course, there are a certain number of things that are in constant transit -- like food. Most things, however, including a stockpiling of the pantry must be considered to be an added weight.

   What to do with what one takes off leads directly to the three "R"s of Recycling. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Reducing is associated with packaging material and extra things that are not directly part of the item which you acquire. Reuse can be a matter of giving used items to charity to be re-sold or to become part of the lives of other people who need them. It can also be used to indicate a refilling of containers and such. Finally, recycling allows the materials to be incorporated in new products.

   The Houseboat philosophy adds one additional "R" -- Rethink. This is a preparatory thought before acquiring something. Is this something that will add to the quality of my life? Is this something that is more important than something else that I presently have around me? This isn't something that happens a lot in the current consumer-directed economy and society in which we live. (It DOES start moving that direction when one starts going towards the final direction of life -- a desire to eliminate the unneeded before someone else has to take care of it.)

   All together, the four "R"s are really the Houseboat Philosophy. While, for most of us, our houses are not likely to sink if we get one too many things into the house, clutter still affects our lives. How many times do you have to look for something you have mislaid? Is it easier to find one item out of a thousand that you have around -- or is it easier to find one item out of a hundred? How about cleaning? Is it easier to clean around 20 pieces of furniture or is it easier to clean around six?

   We are presently reducing in our household. We have a lot of books. Each book includes memories -- where did we get it, what thoughts arose when we read it, what other people were around when we read it, what was our mood before and after reading it. It is hard to remember that, even if the book is no longer around, the memories can still be present. If you have a box of things that hasn't been opened in ten years then how important are the things in that box?

   What are the important items to keep on your houseboat?