Ownership is overrated; sharing can improve your wealth, improve the environment and increase happiness-inducing social connections (credit: ryancr)

A few days ago I read about Rent the Runway, a New York business that lets members share rather than buy expensive designer dresses. Which makes sense, because Bag, Borrow and Steal already lets them share accessories, and they can get to their fancy shindig in transportation shared through Zip, AutoShare, “ écurie25 (for supercar fans) or—if they need to fly—NetJets.

And why not? As an AutoShare member, I can attest to sharing’s benefits. I used to own a sports car. While it was fun to drive, it returned too little value for time and money. So I unloaded it a few months ago and now save nearly $1,000 a month in lease, gas, insurance, parking, registration and maintenance costs, while simultaneously reducing my carbon footprint and increasing my productivity by using laptop-friendly public transit. And when I need a car? There are six AutoShare vehicles within a two block radius.

Having reaped sharing’s rewards, I can only think the trend will continue. And few segments of the economy are immune. From a financial and environmental perspective, sharing makes sense. Why pay for a car 365 days a year, 24 hours a day when you’re only driving it a fraction of that time? Why produce a car (or two) for every person when several people can share one? Fractional ownership can reduce our financial burdens and environmental impacts. And as Rent the Runway shows, we can still live like queens—with better wardrobes.

Some might argue that there are downsides. One that comes to mind is the tragedy of the commons, in which common goods get destroyed by individuals acting in their own best interest. But that tragedy doesn’t apply when businesses control the resource being shared, because their interest is maintaining the common good—and canceling memberships can halt others from exploiting them. Furthermore, as a member of a car-sharing service, I can say that members will protect common goods they rely on. And since you always know who had an item before it got damaged, a bit of social pressure helps keep people honest.

What about “pride of ownership?” It can be replaced by pride of membership. And since ownership of material goods brings little happiness, buying stuff is a bad investment in well-being (although our psychological predispositions and sociological influences tend to make us think otherwise). On the other hand, social connections do bring happiness. So sharing services leave us with more money to pursue happiness-inducing experiences, while simultaneously connecting us to other people. It’s a win-win for happiness.

No doubt our modern, internet-soaked world contributes as well. “Share this” has grown from a link beneath people’s blogs to an ethos. Whereas individuality and privacy once reigned supreme, we now crave social connectedness and openness. The thought of sharing clothes with strangers doesn’t seem so bizarre after you’ve posted half-naked pictures of yourself on Facebook and followed them up with a status describing today’s lunch. And what are crowdsourced common-goods like Wikipedia if not monuments to sharing, in this case of time and expertise?

So where might this be going? I’ve begun thinking of businesses that can work on the sharing model, and I believe that many will be tried. Why buy clothes for fast-growing children, for example, when you could visit a local clothes share? Why buy a scooter when you can grab a Vespa from the lot across the road?  Certainly, there are some things we’ll want to own. (I imagine underwear sharing might not work so well.) But I’ll bet that for everything people would share, someone will create a (likely profitable) business to facilitate it. And your wallet and the planet will probably thank them.