>OP's 'minimalism' is sustained by a reliance upon huge amounts of infrastructure, most of it environmentally unsustainable.
That's true. On the other hand it's there. All that infrastructure wasn't installed for his use exclusively. So, yes, I agree he's just moving the ownership from personal to distributed corporate/community. It's somewhat comparable to playing lose with accounting rules and moving money into off-shore banks. But, even homeless people utilize what is out there for them to use -like shopping carts, fast food restaurants, etc. I'ts not as though they become wilderness foragers.
>OP outsources the burden of sustaining his lifestyle to people poorer and browner than himself.
That's a bit of unnecessary inflammatory dressing.
He (or someone else) could have easily done the same thing in China, or Finland or South Korea or Greece. Or, similarly, someone brown could have done similar. Not all browns over the world are destitute, as one might portray.
Yes, OP is not responsible for the existence of the machine. But no, there is no real meaning to "minimalism" if you do not stop pulling on the machine's demand lever. Parent comment is questioning whether OP has actually done that, or if he's not simply made his demand less visible (consumer vanity).
This is off-topic, but, if as a society the goal were to put less stress on resources there are two alternatives: either individually consume less or, have fewer consumers. Neither alternative seems compatible with the prevalent economic model --see Japan's stagnation in a nation which is neither growing its population and where the current population has decreased its 'consumerism'. Still, ZPG or near ZPG seems to be in disfavor as a way to ease pressure on resources.
With regard to the OP. it would seem, at least marginally, relying on the machine rather than on personal ownership is more resource efficient.
And, yes, as others pointed out, minimalism, is a pretty malleable term.
That's true. On the other hand it's there. All that infrastructure wasn't installed for his use exclusively. So, yes, I agree he's just moving the ownership from personal to distributed corporate/community. It's somewhat comparable to playing lose with accounting rules and moving money into off-shore banks. But, even homeless people utilize what is out there for them to use -like shopping carts, fast food restaurants, etc. I'ts not as though they become wilderness foragers.
>OP outsources the burden of sustaining his lifestyle to people poorer and browner than himself.
That's a bit of unnecessary inflammatory dressing.
He (or someone else) could have easily done the same thing in China, or Finland or South Korea or Greece. Or, similarly, someone brown could have done similar. Not all browns over the world are destitute, as one might portray.