In many ways I’m very into to the idea of simplicity (for example, I just spent quite a bit of money switching to a flip phone with no internet browser instead of my iPhone). But this book in particular did not work for me.
Overall, the book had a tendency to posit simplicity as a solution for everything, with no drawbacks. It’s better for the environment, it’s better for your happiness, it’s cheaper, it’s easy… what’s not to like? Which self-evidently cannot be true, given that the world has not taken up simplicity en masse. And it feels disingenuous and sales pitch-y.
There’s an especial problem here when it comes to the easiness part… Fixing your own clothes is hard. Not everyone is able to tend a garden. Not everyone has the startup capital needed to homestead. Spending less time on screens has been deeply a meaningful and good thing in my life and also, there are good parts about being more enmeshed with popular culture and social media that I’m missing out on. There are tradeoffs that this book ignores. And quite a few of the essays are ridiculously tone-deaf wrt class privilege.
On the environmental piece: I am not a degrowther. The book was published in 2009 and admittedly it was a different time then. Maybe back then it was a more reasonable argument. And I want to recognize that I have a tendency to discount the power of cultural change. But given the climate change timeline we’re on… even if you want to advocate for changing consumption habits, you need to at the very least invest most of your effort in other solutions.
What frustrates me is that there’s a perfectly fine argument for simplicity that doesn’t require broadening it so unreasonably far. “Those of us who have the resources to do so should slow down, use less stuff, and invest in what we have. There are tradeoffs and annoyances that come with this, but on balance will make your life better in a deeply meaningful way.” Why not make that argument?