When we talk of the 100 Things Challenge it is important to keep in mind that the main reason David Bruno created it was to regain control of his life. In his case, the 100 Things Challenge was a year-long exercise in mindfulness to reset his priorities and regain control of his life. The 100 Things Challenge was never intended to be a one size fits all requirement to being a minimalist. Many minimalists pride themselves in being nonconformists to the materialistic culture around us. Simple living and its minimalist subset, are growing counter-cultures within our materialistic society. Thus simply because it has become the in thing to do among minimalists, is the worse reason for doing it.
One of the main issues that I have with the 100 Things Challenge is that in some circles it has turned into a challenge of who can own the least amount of stuff. In the style of reverse materialism, it has been revised into a 75 Things Challenge and a 50 Things Challenge. For a time there was even one guy that claimed to own only 15 things. These attempts seem to make the 100 things the maximum number of personal possessions one can own and still be a real minimalist. One step further are the single bag minimalists who literally limit themselves to what can fit into a single carry-on sized bag. Please note I am not saying that people who live this way are arrogant elitists who think they are better for owning less stuff. It is the wider culture of radical minimalism as reverse materialism to the extreme that concerns me.
The areas of overhead and responsible stewardship of resources are two areas that I see the 100 Things Challenge having major issues. The purpose of minimalism is to get rid of unnecessary overhead caused by having more than is needed. The 100 Things Challenge, on the other hand, adds the overhead of keeping an active numbered inventory of one’s things. The 100 Things Challenge is also potentially wasteful as it involves getting rid of “extra” things for the sake of a number as compared to one’s needs. For example, one may own 3 pairs of regularly used shoes and eliminate 2 pairs for the sake of the challenge. The problem is that when the remaining pair wears out one will need to replace it. So one ends up buying a new pair of shoes shortly after discarding 2 perfectly good pairs of shoes. These two reasons alone are in my opinion enough to be uneasy about taking part in the 100 Things Challenge.
Finally, I wonder how much of the attractiveness of the 100 Things Challenge is rooted in materialism. Materialism temps us into seeing material objects as a way to fix problems and provide meaning and purpose. In the same way, radical minimalism also tempts us with the image of a dream escape from the struggles and complexity of modern life. So if one goes after the 100 Things Challenge like a person orders the next miracle kitchen gadget after seeing it on TV. In which case I can promise you that the 100 Things Challenge will fail to life up to that level of hype. This is because our search for lasting fulfillment, meaning and purpose are spiritual matters.