IMO (in the process of doing this myself), this is the most important point
For living arrangements, you are mostly correct. I can exist very comfortably in about 1,000ft². Heck, even 800ft² would be comfy and cosy.
My problem involves my hobbies and domestic activities: I need a 200ft² cool room for the enormous amounts of fruits and vegetables I harvest every year, canning all that shit needs a 150ft² summer kitchen so I don’t seize up my regular kitchen with all that processing (I use that summer kitchen consistently at least six months out of the year), I need a library the size of a master bedroom (at least another 200ft²) for my books (including the movable stacks on rails), I do enough woodworking to need a garage-sized shop (500ft²) , and my IT work requires no small office (180ft² and an attached server room (80ft²) with its own cooling. Plus, I regularly use a wet sauna, which needs the same amount of room as a laundry.
So that balloons my requirements by _at least_ another 1,500ft², to say nothing of the needs of my wife.
This is true of initial 800 sq ft as well.
Everything is a want when you want it to be. Is even living really a need? After all - you can just die and then you don’t definitely don’t need/want anything then for sure!
I will keep the 1st editions, and most reference books.
I feel can toss everyone of my computer books. (Not one did I find well written, or worth keeping. If anyone decided to write a computer/programming book take out every unneeded word. Maybe take a technical writing course if you live near a good university?)
It's just hard to get rid of reference books.
That's what the internet + ebooks are for.
Unless a book has a special meaning to me personally or is considered life changing, I rarely keep any physical books.
With technical books, I often need to jump to another section, which is so much slower and more painful than with dead trees. Code formatting also tends to be abysmal on my reader—although books are not the best for this either. Maybe I’m not using my device to the fullest?
He's died now, I took over the flat, and moved from a family home into the same flat. I also had to shed a lot of books in the process. I ripped my large CD collection to a media server. I miss some of those books I got rid of; but I like this small flat, and I don't want to dedicate a small room to a library.
The first books I got rid of were computer books. They were all manuals for some obsolescent technology; like, I thought the "Rhino" Javascript book would be useful forever (um, no). I got rid of a few feet of books on Buddhism, and several more feet were books on Western philosophy from my undergraduate days. These were books that had been formative for me, but I was honestly never going to open them again.
So I don't really agree with my father's advice. If you regret ditching a book, you can just replace it.
This is pretty obvious if you don't take a deliberately uncharitable perspective on what I wrote.
Arguing they're just two points on the same scale makes me wonder if you have some sort of agenda to argue that people don't really need bedrooms because they don't really need summer kitchens.
That's a great way to live and I approve of it, but I remain steadfastly convinced that it's good for humans to have some unnecessary luxuries.
It'd be amazing if everyone had things they don't need. I'd love to live in a world where everyone had what they need and more. That's a no brainer.
The problem is that you're saying "the luxuries they're unwilling to compromise on" should be considered needs because some entitled rich idiot isn't able to accept that they could actually live with just one kitchen. That's stupid. They're still luxuries, and absolutely not equivalent to actual needs.
Needs and wants are not the same things. Arguing that they are, and that they're just two things on a scale of wants, or that they're two things on a scale of needs, ignores that there are things people actually need and things that people can live without.
I'm not arguing that rekabis shouldn't have their second kitchen. I'm only saying that they could live without it, and that they would probably give it up before giving up the privacy of their bedroom. Maybe that's wrong. Perhaps they could put a bed in it and sleep there. I don't know.
The broader point here is that whittling away everything nice about your life to be "economically efficient" (as per the original comment I replied to) is a terrible idea unless you've got no alternative. People should have nice things, like windows and kitchens, and they should have better reasons than economic efficiency for giving them up. I don't think you or I disagree on this.
This goes full circle to what you were arguing against earlier.
It is indeed true that humans always strive for more than minimal subsistence and this is part of living. Thus it is not illogical to have things which go beyond the bare minimum to survive. They're technically "wants", but that's what it means to live.
Everyone posting to say "but if you accept that needs are more than air and water then you must be saying a home-based cannery is essential for the human condition!" are just being idiots.
Prioritising your finances over a satisfying and interesting life sounds dull, and like a great way to make yourself mentally unwell if you do it for too long.
Not everyone’s preferred life “needs” much space but when yours does, not having it can be very stifling and stressful.