One of the core ideas in my book The World After Capital is that we have sufficient physical capital in the world to meet everyone’s needs. To help establish this I provide a fairly detailed analysis of what our needs are.
Now today’s post is about clothing. Some people would say that clothing is a need, but that’s a conceptual mistake. Clothing is not a need, rather it is a solution for two actual needs: temperature regulation and bodily integrity. When it gets too cold we use clothing to warm ourselves. And when we work in dangerous environments we use clothing to protect our bodies.
Again, clothing is a solution, not a need. I realize this is likely somewhat counterintuitive for a lot of people who have thought of clothing as a need. But we kind of know that it’s not a need because in the right climate (and without dangerous activities) people are perfectly happy wearing very little or nothing at all. Some people might want to add another need here somehow related to being ashamed or not wanting others to see our body but those are clearly social constructs (or internalized reactions to those) that are highly dependent on time and place rather than universals.
Once you see clothing as a solution to needs it becomes easier to think clearly about what makes for a good clothing and how much you really need. For example, clothing should be durable so you don’t need to replace it all the time. It should also be breathable so you can carry out physical activities.
My contention has been that from this perspective not a lot of clothing is required to meet the underlying needs. I had always wanted to test that idea for myself but never really got around to it, until the COVID-19 pandemic that is. We were on a family trip to Peru when things got bad in March. And I realized that I could simply try to go on using only the clothes I had brought along, which fit into an Away carry-on suitcase and a small backpack (plus of course what I was wearing).
I have now done this for seven months and have been quite happy with the results. Here is a rough inventory: a bunch of underwear and socks (mostly lightweight quick dry from Ex Officio), two pairs of light long pants and two pairs of heavier long pants (one jeans, one khaki), a bunch of t-shirts and four shirts (again quick dry from Ex Officio), two sweatshirts and a zippered fleece (Patagonia). As for shoes I have a pair of hiking boots, a pair of sneakers and a pair of flip flops. I also have some miscellaneous clothing items like swim trunks, a baseball hat and sunglasses.
I probably should lay them all out and take a picture but the image below taken from this post does a pretty good job:
Now as we are headed into winter I will need a few more items, such as a warmer jacket, warmer hat and some long underwear.
To be clear, I am not at all suggesting that people are somehow bad if they want more clothes. I want (and have) more clothes. The initial point is far simpler: that the clothes required as a solution for a needs can be quite minimal. Everything else above that is driven by wants. And while that may seem trivial, making that distinction clearly is what lets us understand that we (a) have enough physical capital in the world for everyone to have need-based clothing and (b) that clothing expenses can be small, which is one of the components of what people would cover out a Universal Basic Income.
I am now intrigued by the idea of running similar personal experiments in other areas, such as food and housing, which are solutions to other important human needs. If you have suggestions for how to do so or have done so yourself – or want to share your minimalist wardrobe, please post in the comments.
PS The title of this post is a reference to the wonderful book “How Much is Enough?” by Edward and Robert Skidelsky.
