So, why not get an e-reader? It takes less space than a single good book, but can hold thousands, entire libraries' worth. Most good ones are great at what they do. If he has merely not thought of this then he should consider it. If he has, but chooses not to... Isn't he doing what he's arguing against? If you willfully choose books over a good e-reader filled with said books, then I tend to think that, to a certain degree (although not always) you're sentimentally attached to the physical book. (I grant in certain cases, such as text books or heavily-noted books it can be a greater convenience to have a physical thing handy). Does he ascribe the same value to having movies? What if I replaced "Books" with "Video Games"? I don't disagree with his philosophy but I do want to know where he draws the line on having lots of 'stuff', especially if the stuff is essentially pure information, like books, movies, music and games. EDIT: I can see this was written in 2007, when e-readers were not like they are now. That in mind, I think the privileged position he gives to books is a bit counter-intuitive. Also if he thinks owning "several thousand books" is not an inconvenience greater than several thousand of anything else, he has never moved.
I'm right there with you on the ebook front. I think many intellectual types have a soft spot for printed books as physical artifacts, even if they've transcended other forms of clutter. I think it can say different things about different people, depending on whether they open those books they surround themselves with.
Randy Frost, in his book, Stuff: Compulsive Hoarding and the Meaning of Things, says we hoard stuff because we are prisoners of the stories the stuff tells us about who we are. He says you can get rid of the stuff in your life by recognizing and if necessary honouring the stories they tell.(This could explain why clutter doesn't seem to bother kids as much as adults. Kids are less perceptive. They build a coarser model of their surroundings, and this consumes less energy.)
I don't know exactly what he means by the second sentence - anyone? But I agree with the first sentence. When people are younger, they need stuff. With the stuff, they build their first home environment and help put together an identity. I think maybe we spend our first 50 years collecting stuff, and our next 50 years trying to get rid of it.
He's saying people monitor their environment, and less stuff, or a less elaborate understanding of the stuff, takes less energy. I don't think I agree. We filter out whatever we think isn't relevant, so, unless we think we're in a hostile environment (which would require us to be vigilant), the amount of stuff probably doesn't matter after you've already registered and assessed it.(This could explain why clutter doesn't seem to bother kids as much as adults. Kids are less perceptive. They build a coarser model of their surroundings, and this consumes less energy.)
I don't know exactly what he means by the second sentence - anyone?
I think you're probably right that we don't actually pay attention to the established 'stuff' of our lives. However, I feel much better every time I get rid of more stuff and reduce the clutter of my environment. It's possible to not know how oppressed you are by your surroundings.