chephy

They won't. And we have (doomed ourselves to a bleak outcome). I hope time will prove me wrong.

Newspaperguy

People won't change their behaviour just because they've been told they should or should not do something. In fact, some will react by moving in the opposite direction. This has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting a message but it has everything to do with the way in which that message is presented.

If I expect anyone to make lifestyle changes, I need to first lead by example. Unless I can show that the changes are possible and that they can be made without sacrificing the most important quality of life issues, my message, no matter how important, will be perceived as empty words.

cerewa

To paraphrase certain other message-board posts: Jeez, if you hate america so much, why don't you just leave?! (just kidding)

Roody

The whole argument is So last century. Contemporary environmentalists are constantly stressing that a switch to sustainability does not have to mean a reduction in quality of life. The issue is completely outdated and irrelevant.

gerv 

I think this sentiment is driven by groups who define "quality of life" a little differently than most people here. There seems to be a whole segment of society whose chief characteristic is fear of change.

Newspaperguy

Moving to sustainability will affect our lifestyles. We've been told it's important to recycle, compost and generate less waste. But we've also been told to cut fuel consumption, cut electrical power consumption, use less water and live in smaller, more efficient homes in an effort to become sustainable. Many of the changes, at least the way they've been presented to us, demand much but offer little in exchange. This is why it's so important to show people — not just to tell them — how one can enjoy a good quality of life while practicing a responsible lifestyle.

bragi

I agree with you on many issues, but not this one. Well, maybe I do. It depends on your definition of "quality of life." If you believe that your quality of life depends on a high level of consumption (big car, bigger house, lots of miles driven, a back seat full of Starbucks cups and fast-food waste, and a closet full of stuff you never use), you're going to have to make some changes in the near future, whether you want to or not, it doesn't matter what Greenpeace says. You can't argue with math. If you define a high quality of life as one that includes decent housing, clean water, adequate food, clothing, and a decent amount of leisure for all, then yes, it's reasonable for environmentalists to hope for these things. Anyone who thinks we can continue to live like well-off, or even "middle class," residents of Atlanta or Houston is dreaming.

(I'm not picking on residents of these cities. I've just noticed that a lot of people in these two areas seem to have big houses and drive SUVs almost without exception, and as a result make perfect examples of the so-called American Way of Life, that's all..)

Roody

Yes, i agree. "Quality of life" is a complex issue. Many people in the richer countries are starting to realize that the consumer economy is not delivering everything that it promised. Life seems so shallow for most people, and sustainability is clearly the next big life-or-death issue. It is very possible that we will be able to sustain comfortable lives (good food, nice homes, convenient transportation) while at the same time making improvements in our relationships with nature and each other. The best discussion of these issues that I know of is the book Deep Economy by Bill McKibben.