[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).