This a question that has been knocking around in my head for the past few days:
Is the UL philosophy (or moreso, the gear fanaticism we engage in here on BPL) producing materialistic backpackers?
If this is the case, where do we draw the line?
Do we all need a daypack, a pack for overnighters, and a pack for longer distances?
Do we need 2 or 3 different stoves to minimize weight on short vs longer trips? (I almost fell intro this trap because of lust for a caldera cone vs my jetboil, but I resisted at the last second).
Can we live with the tradeoffs of our gear choices without needing to indulge in purchasing more?
I guess what I'm thinking is, all gear has tradeoffs, but the BPL philosophy tends to use these tradeoffs as justification for the purchasing of situation-specific gear. My proposition is that instead of worrying about the few ounces we might be saving from bringing that alcohol stove on an overnighter instead of a Jetboil, maybe we could free ourselves from the paralysis by analysis that occurs in our gear closets and choose lightweight gear that works well generally. Now don't get me wrong, this might not be the best idea for EVERY gear choice (I don't need a 60L pack on a dayhike, so I should probably pick up another pack), but if we spent less time spreadsheeting and more time using, do you think we would be better off? I feel like this conversation was started by Ryan Jordan in a roundabout way with his cottage stagnation post (to which people took offense), but I'd like to have a constructive conversation about the idea.
Just some random thoughts. Feel free to weigh in. As for me, I'm going for a trail run on this beautiful Colorado day!



