[chrisseaton]

Minimalism sounds admiral, but how do you stop it limiting your life?

For example someone invites you on a hike but you can't fit decent hiking boots in your two suitcases. Or someone invites you to a semi-formal dinner but you can't fit a proper evening jacket in there.

You can't even hire boots as they need to broken in.

[lmm]

It forces you to make these choices - either you're someone who enjoys formal dinners enough to own a formal jacket, or you're not. Either you enjoy hiking enough to own hiking boots, or you don't. Either you enjoy playing squash enough to own a squash racket, or you don't. Either you enjoy snorkeling enough to own a snorkel, or you don't. It removes the ability to keep these things in the back of the cupboard and tell yourself you like that activity when actually you haven't done it for five years and aren't going to do it in the next five years either, forces you to make choices about which hobbies you enjoy (and take those seriously) and which you don't.

[shermanyo]

Also, in most cases the alternative is to hire equipment.

I could never justify owning even a cheap set of golf clubs, pool cue or bowling shoes, but I'll never turn down an invitation by friends or family. If I do something rarely, but still enjoy it, I'll treat it like planning and budgeting for any other night out or holiday.

[pikachu_is_cool]

Or what if someone invites you to go climbing but you don't have climbing shoes? Or what if someone wants to go camping but you don't have a tent? Or what if someone wants to cook some rice and tofu but you don't have a rice cooker? Or what if....

[Thiez]

What is this rice cooker you speak of? I cook my rice in a pan with boiling water.

[zzzzzzzza]

You don't need hiking boots to go on a hike, do you need an evening jacket to go to a dinner? Could you just make do with one suit? I live in a fairly minimalist style. In my experience you trade one set of experiences for another. Personally I prefer the set of experiences I get, they seem more "authentic".

[chrisseaton]

You don't need boots for a stroll in the woods, but I'd hate to think 'that looks like a fun mountain to go up, but it wouldn't be responsible as I may break an ankle in these soft shoes'.

And you can turn up at people's parties dressed however you want, but they may not invite you again if you disrespect them by ignoring a reasonable dress code.

So yes I see you're trading experiences.

Where is the line between minimalism and simply being inappropriately dressed and ill-equipped.

[supermatt]

"For traversing steep, rugged terrain you need strong flexible ankles and light, flexible footwear. Doing exercises to strengthen your ankles is better than splinting them in heavy, rigid boots."

- Chris Townsend. Author of "The Backpackers Handbook"

[icebraining]

From pictures, he still uses boots, just lighter ones. I'm pretty sure you'd struggle fitting these in a suitcase: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kQ4fJrh8wBk/U1FeF6moB2I/AAAAAAAAFn...

[mantas]

Fun thing is, if you do smth a lot, you get accustomed to it and you need much support from gear. But if you do smth just occasionally, every small bit helps to enjoy the experience and avoid injuries.

In the above example, occasional hiker would be much better off with good hiking shoes. While a well-seasoned one could do same hike in dress shoes, sneakers or whatever. On the other hand, a seasoned hiker is more likely to have the good shoes and use them just for the sake of comfort and safety.

[ddalex]

Permanent storage. High value low usage objects go in permanent storage - a lot more efficient use of space than keeping them in a cramped apartment.