Anything taken to an extreme becomes absurd, sure. You're right that my argument is not just against paper catalogs, but against consumerism in general.

However, my aim is not to take it to the extreme, nor to suggest that we shouldn't eat. It's merely to introduce a measure of "seventh generation" thinking and consideration into buying habits, beyond the amount of funds it takes to procure something.

If I take it further than sounds comfortable to you in my own life, it is only show what is possible, and to shift the needle of normal a little bit towards the direction of prudence and restraint.

Do we still need food? Of course! Do we need a place to sleep comfortably? Of course we do, and I do not suggest othrwise.

But what about new clothes when we already have quite a few sets which are still good, or a new pair of shoes when we still have a couple which are just a bit scuffed?

My argument is to consider the full systemic impact of buying those items, something no one else will do for us, before going through with it. If you consider this idea next time you are about to buy something, that each {dollar} spent comes back around in so many ways to harm us and our close relatives on the biological tree of live, then I will consider my writing a success.

I think your argument is the one falling down the slippery slope. How does considering protecting the environment to be good inevitably lead to arguments against both our existences when a line can be clearly drawn at the point where protection is advocated only so far as to maximize humanity's survival? This extreme is so clearly on the opposite side of that line compared to eradicating paper catalogs which honestly isn't going to kill anyone or stop us from "feeding our kids".

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".

I'm not fluent in this logic lingo, but I don't think there's a point in pointing out that someone might believe in the absurd if its, well, absurd. Yes, surely there are crazy people who will jump down every slippery slope to misinterpret the very simple proposition that something, all things considered and along the line I have stated before, makes the world better, by taking it to the absurd, but I don't think arguing on this person's behalf like you are doing is particularly worthwhile if you even acknowledge that the slippery slope is absurd.

Neither futon nor kotatsu add any vertical space to the room as opposed to having a bed or a table with drawers underneath

In the context of this discussion (i.e. the suggestion that consumerism is bad from an environmental impact perspective), that'd actually qualify as a feature of futons/kotatsu.

Using more vertical space means I need a narrower living space which means cities can be more compact.

So I don’t think it would qualify.

Sort of the whole point of a futon is that you put it in the closet during the day so you can reuse the space as your living room. Your bed just takes space that you don't use for 2/3 of the day.

Similarly, kotatsu don't require chairs.

You should see how compact things are in Japan :)

Kotatsu does add some space to the room, since it's a table - you keep your legs under it and now you can put stuff on top.