I'm not saying one necessarily implies the other. That was reductio ad absurdum precisely to demonstrate that any argument of this type, no matter how sensible

I'm not saying one necessarily implies the other. That was reductio ad absurdum precisely to demonstrate that any argument of this type, no matter how sensible or true, can be considered dismissible by someone. I'm speaking to the idea of in-groups vs out-groups. For example, think about veganism and how their activism generally falls on deaf ears outside of their own circles. Bringing supply chain arguments to this discussion is very similar in the sense that they are strictly true but easily dismissible by someone who doesn't share the same set of values/priorities. The line of argument might potentially even be self-defeating, for example, if the takeaway is that electronic catalogs > paper catalogs, never mind the rare earth mines and sweatshops in china and that drawers in ikea furniture still invite further consumerism. That's a very very different takeaway than "geez I should buy less stuff".