[AmericanChopper]

> first step realize that happiness is not automatically linked to consumption

I’ve always thought that framing the issue like this is both smug and dishonest.

Smug because you’re essentially saying that people are wrong about the things they believe bring them satisfaction and comfort.

Dishonest because reduce in this context will always mean a reduction in quality of life.

Aside from being an ineffective way to convince people of anything, it also seems counterproductive in the sense that it alienates people from caring about the issue.

[inflatableDodo]

I don't know about smug, is more just a factual appraisal. People are very often wrong about the things they believe bring them satisfaction and comfort. That is clearly evident. This is also to be expected though, as we are all just making it up as we go along really.

As for reduction in the quality of life, you don't generally tell an obese person that their quality of life would improve if they could just eat more cake. Consumption and quality of life are not in a linear relationship.

[m0zg]

This is a profoundly consumerist point of view, IMO. It presupposes that buying more stuff necessarily brings more satisfaction and comfort (which is not true in general once one's basic needs for security, food, shelter, and healthcare are met), and that having less stuff means "a reduction in quality of life" (also not true, having less stuff leads to an increase in quality of life for many people).

There are demonstrably a lot of unsatisfied, uncomfortable people who have a lot of stuff and whose quality of life is quite poor, all things considered.

[AmericanChopper]

This position erroneously presupposes that life satisfaction and quality of life are the same thing. Many people are satisfied with a lower quality of life, and are more than happy to invest tremendous effort into things that others may expect to be more convenient. But the point of view in the parent comment is essentially “if you do not derive satisfaction in life from the same things that I do, then you are wrong”, which is remarkably arrogant and closed minded.

[kilburn]

Quality of life is a subjective issue [1], of which material possesion is just one amongst several dimensions. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for a person to improve their quality of life by consuming less: by the very definition of quality of life, it is enough for said person to feel that their quality of life improved as a result of consuming less for it to be true.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life

[AmericanChopper]

Nearly all of the metrics used to track quality of life relate directly to consumption. Perhaps I would have been better to say ‘standard of living’, which exclusively measures consumption. But none of that changes my point, which is when you say ‘reduce’ in this context, you’re not being honest about what you’re reducing, and basically saying that the only correct way to derive satisfaction from life is the way that you do it (or at least the way you’re proposing it should be done).

[contactlight11]

I agree, I think a lot of the "reduce consumption or you are wasting your time/money/harming the environment" propaganda takes it too far.

I stated it the way I did to point out that happiness is not linked to consumption in the sense that more consumption does not always equate to more happiness. On the flip side, I was also not referring to a reduction of consumption to the point that it influences one's quality of life. Personally, over the last few months I've noticed some purchases I made in the past that I didn't need or didn't use enough to make it worth it, or where I could have used something I already had on-hand. I use that as a learning opportunity, to adjust my mindset into the future by creating a couple of simple guidelines before making semi-major purchases (did I sleep on it, did I do adequate research into pros/cons/alternatives without going crazy, etc).

Quite to the contrary of what you are saying, I find a reduction of purchases in this way will positively contribute to my quality of life, both in the present and in the future with increased savings rate and decreased clutter. I'd much rather live in a place where I wasn't looking at stuff I don't use and feeling bad about it. I think you falsely equated my statement and this idea about reduction with the millennial's definition of minimalism. That carries a smug connotation, I'm just talking about mindfulness that fits seamlessly into place with your current lifestyle. I even tried not to take a stance on the issue, and only stated that consumption is both the products you buy and the ways you go about doing things, not that anyone who consumes above X amount is evil.

[Firadeoclus]

How would you frame it?

People saying this are frequently those who would also admit that they were wrong about the things they believed to bring them satisfaction and comfort. From their own experience they know that it did not mean a reduction in quality of life for them. That doesn't mean it works that way for everyone, but it's not dishonest.

[AmericanChopper]

Well, honestly...

If you believe that the future of the world depends on reducing consumption, a presupposition which is not necessarily true, then you are asking people to reduce their quality of life. That’s not to say that people cannot be satisfied by a reduced quality of life, but asking people to sacrifice things that bring them comfort, convenience or satisfaction is by definition asking them to reduce their quality of life.

[Firadeoclus]

I'm not referring to asking people to sacrifice something, but to question assumptions around consumption which supposedly brings comfort, convenience or satisfaction. That doesn't mean all those assumptions are wrong, but that it's likely some of them are.