6 ms·

Decreasing consumption doesn't necessarily imply a decrease in quality of life. In the West, at least, we generally work too much, have too little social engage

Decreasing consumption doesn't necessarily imply a decrease in quality of life. In the West, at least, we generally work too much, have too little social engagement, and spend lots of money and resources on things that don't really improve our lives. Many things that could actually make us happier don't require much consumption, but they're essentially luxury goods because of the modern lifestyle's high demands. I'm thinking of things like relaxing with friends and/or family, volunteering/contributing to your local community, exercising, eating healthily... even getting enough sleep on a regular basis!

jshzglr 4y ago
Most of this is pretty obvious and yet people act differently. That’s the whole point. It’s not a realistic solution.
smabie 4y ago
I mean you can go to do? People have made their choices (including me).
rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> we generally work too much I decide if I work too much. You don't get to decide if I work too much. >> have too little social engagement I get to decide my level of social engagement. You don't get to decide my level of social engagement. >> spend lots of money and resources on things that don't really improve our lives I get to decide how to spend my money. You don't get to decide how to spend my money.
- anemoiac 4y ago
  A little aggressive, no? No one's "deciding" anything for anyone in my comment. You don't get to decide how much work/social engagement/widget purchasing makes you content any more than you can "decide" how many drinks it takes for you to get drunk. All I'm saying is that many people could both reduce their consumption and improve their quality of lives by optimizing for factors unrelated to material consumption.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  I don't think any of those are mutually exclusive. Choosing or being manipulated into choosing an unhealthy level of social engagement doesn't make it any less unhealthy
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Hard agree. Anyone claiming that "we are X and Y" is just an authoritarian in disguise, trying to dictate how everyone else should live. At some point they should really ask themselves whether "saving the planet" is actually worth it if everyone is locked up in a cage for the sake of controlling consumation. Might as well just kill us all.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    You may think that you are maximizing freedom by maximizing immediately visible freedoms but the reality is that you are cutting the freedom of others short and they do the same to you until you end up with much less freedom than if you took the direct hit to freedom. Enjoy living in the actual cage with an open door and never even considering to step out of it. The word personal responsibility is just an empty post rationalization to say "Haha I won you didn, suck it up"
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > You may think that you are maximizing freedom by maximizing immediately visible freedoms but the reality is that you are cutting the freedom of others short and they do the same to you until you end up with much less freedom than if you took the direct hit to freedom. You're equating the inherent renunciations of living in society (such as respecting others' right to live and personal property) with arbitrary restrictions such as "consume less". Consuming more doesn't lead to direct harm to anyone - it is your hypothesis that everyone consuming more leads to a global issue. If the problem is human consumption, which grows linearly with the amount of people on this planet, perhaps the problem is that there are too many people. Why does nobody suggest population control in some form? Why is the answer always "let's make everyone's lives miserable so the population can keep growing"? And what happens when population grows so much that even the "lesser" consumption presents a problem? What happens when we reach the lower limit of human consumption requirement, and the number of people is so high that the total consumption still presents a problem? Or to go even deeper - why even focus on restricting consumption in the first place? Is there any data to suggest that human consumption is actually a problem, compared to the massive amount of energy spent for industrial and military purposes? Without such data, the argument seems like a red herring, shifting the blame to people, while keeping the real culprits in the shadow.
- prng2021 4y ago
  I agree to an extent but a person in North Korea would say they get to decide how brainwashed they are. Everything's relative. As a nation, the US has abysmal parental leave and vacation policies compared to others. By numerous metrics, we do work too much. Similarly, the US is the poster child of capitism and we do buy tons of things relative to other nations.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    >> a person in North Korea would say they get to decide how brainwashed they are. Nope. If a person in North Korea said they were brainwashed they would be executed at dawn. Sounds like you've been brainwashed. That's OK, they don't kill you for it here. >> As a nation, the US has abysmal parental leave and vacation policies It most certainly does not, if you don't want to work, don't work. Just don't make it my fucking problem that you don't work and we'll get along just fine.
    - prng2021 4y ago
      It sounds like you might not be a native English speaker so let me explain it more clearly. You said that others can't tell you that you work too hard. You decide if you work too hard. If you lived in North Korea and I told you that you're brainwashed, you would probably tell me that you decide if you're brainwashed. You would certainly also tell me that you are not brainwashed. No one in North Korea would say they're brainwashed. My point is that actual data is more useful to compare work cultures between countries than a citizen's perception. Next, I mentioned the US has abysmal parental leave and vacation policies. Policies here refers to official government laws/regulations that would enforce a right to take time off. The US doesn't have a minimum vacation policy and is the only industrialized nation to not have one. What you mentioned about not going to work is not a government policy. It's just a personal decision.
      - rufus_foreman 4y ago
        If you work a shit job in America, you get shit wages and shit benefits. Don't do that.
3qz 4y ago
> Decreasing consumption doesn't necessarily imply a decrease in quality of life Decreasing consumption in a more simplified way is just decreasing energy use. For 90% of people on earth this would be worse than climate change. It’s never going to happen.

jshzglr 4y ago

Most of this is pretty obvious and yet people act differently. That’s the whole point. It’s not a realistic solution.

smabie 4y ago

I mean you can go to do? People have made their choices (including me).

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> we generally work too much I decide if I work too much. You don't get to decide if I work too much. >> have too little social engagement I get to decide my level of social engagement. You don't get to decide my level of social engagement. >> spend lots of money and resources on things that don't really improve our lives I get to decide how to spend my money. You don't get to decide how to spend my money.

anemoiac 4y ago
A little aggressive, no? No one's "deciding" anything for anyone in my comment. You don't get to decide how much work/social engagement/widget purchasing makes you content any more than you can "decide" how many drinks it takes for you to get drunk. All I'm saying is that many people could both reduce their consumption and improve their quality of lives by optimizing for factors unrelated to material consumption.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
I don't think any of those are mutually exclusive. Choosing or being manipulated into choosing an unhealthy level of social engagement doesn't make it any less unhealthy
bheadmaster 4y ago
Hard agree. Anyone claiming that "we are X and Y" is just an authoritarian in disguise, trying to dictate how everyone else should live. At some point they should really ask themselves whether "saving the planet" is actually worth it if everyone is locked up in a cage for the sake of controlling consumation. Might as well just kill us all.
- imtringued 4y ago
  You may think that you are maximizing freedom by maximizing immediately visible freedoms but the reality is that you are cutting the freedom of others short and they do the same to you until you end up with much less freedom than if you took the direct hit to freedom. Enjoy living in the actual cage with an open door and never even considering to step out of it. The word personal responsibility is just an empty post rationalization to say "Haha I won you didn, suck it up"
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > You may think that you are maximizing freedom by maximizing immediately visible freedoms but the reality is that you are cutting the freedom of others short and they do the same to you until you end up with much less freedom than if you took the direct hit to freedom. You're equating the inherent renunciations of living in society (such as respecting others' right to live and personal property) with arbitrary restrictions such as "consume less". Consuming more doesn't lead to direct harm to anyone - it is your hypothesis that everyone consuming more leads to a global issue. If the problem is human consumption, which grows linearly with the amount of people on this planet, perhaps the problem is that there are too many people. Why does nobody suggest population control in some form? Why is the answer always "let's make everyone's lives miserable so the population can keep growing"? And what happens when population grows so much that even the "lesser" consumption presents a problem? What happens when we reach the lower limit of human consumption requirement, and the number of people is so high that the total consumption still presents a problem? Or to go even deeper - why even focus on restricting consumption in the first place? Is there any data to suggest that human consumption is actually a problem, compared to the massive amount of energy spent for industrial and military purposes? Without such data, the argument seems like a red herring, shifting the blame to people, while keeping the real culprits in the shadow.
prng2021 4y ago
I agree to an extent but a person in North Korea would say they get to decide how brainwashed they are. Everything's relative. As a nation, the US has abysmal parental leave and vacation policies compared to others. By numerous metrics, we do work too much. Similarly, the US is the poster child of capitism and we do buy tons of things relative to other nations.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  >> a person in North Korea would say they get to decide how brainwashed they are. Nope. If a person in North Korea said they were brainwashed they would be executed at dawn. Sounds like you've been brainwashed. That's OK, they don't kill you for it here. >> As a nation, the US has abysmal parental leave and vacation policies It most certainly does not, if you don't want to work, don't work. Just don't make it my fucking problem that you don't work and we'll get along just fine.
  - prng2021 4y ago
    It sounds like you might not be a native English speaker so let me explain it more clearly. You said that others can't tell you that you work too hard. You decide if you work too hard. If you lived in North Korea and I told you that you're brainwashed, you would probably tell me that you decide if you're brainwashed. You would certainly also tell me that you are not brainwashed. No one in North Korea would say they're brainwashed. My point is that actual data is more useful to compare work cultures between countries than a citizen's perception. Next, I mentioned the US has abysmal parental leave and vacation policies. Policies here refers to official government laws/regulations that would enforce a right to take time off. The US doesn't have a minimum vacation policy and is the only industrialized nation to not have one. What you mentioned about not going to work is not a government policy. It's just a personal decision.
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      If you work a shit job in America, you get shit wages and shit benefits. Don't do that.

3qz 4y ago

> Decreasing consumption doesn't necessarily imply a decrease in quality of life Decreasing consumption in a more simplified way is just decreasing energy use. For 90% of people on earth this would be worse than climate change. It’s never going to happen.