Several months ago, I posted on the tiny house movement, where individuals, and even families, have decided to eschew all but the most basic material necessities and moved into significantly reduced living quarters. These are homes that are often 200 square feet or less — the size of a decent sized recreation room. Late last year, my wife and I began the process of decluttering our home, giving away, selling, and sometimes throwing away excess possessions. We have hauled away literally several carloads of goods, and still it seems as though we have so much. Lord willing, we will soon become empty-nesters, and have begun to talk loosely about selling our current home (a shade under 2,000 square feet), and moving into something significantly smaller. How much smaller is a matter of debate. For me, we can’t go too small, but convincing my wife is a different matter. But we both agree that chopping off a few rooms wouldn’t hurt. This sort of goes against popular culture, where consumers constantly strive for more, bigger, and better. I’m done with that. My goal is for less, smaller, and functional. (Small moral dilemma: does it count as covetous to envy those who are farther along in the minimalism process and therefore get by with less than me?) The benefits are tangible: less “stuff” tying you down, elimination of debt, lower cost of living, more freedom. And so I ask, if you are like me and desire a simpler lifestyle, how small could you go? Could you feasibly live in something like this? Some actually do, and do so happily.