I agree with the original post. I also agree with the insightful comments thereafter. I understand it's a catchy phrase to reinforce the concept of redundancy. I get that.

However, here's why I agree with the original post as well. The beginning part of the phrase is too much hyperbole, specifically, "one is none." If that's true, what is "none?" For example, if I have one good fire starter in my bag, is that practically the same as having zero good fire starters in my bag? No, that's ridiculous. The comparison is not even close.

Let's use concrete numbers for you logical folks. Having one good fire starter equals a score of about 90%. Having two good fire starters equals a score of about 98%. Having zero good fire starters equals a score of 0%. So, you get an A- for one good fire starter and an A+ for two good fire starters. You are beyond failing if you have zero good fire starters.

For those of us who already understand the value of redundancy when it comes to packing stuff, one is one, and two is two.