WTF on "Quality of Life"

News Flash: children of Baby Boomers will not have the quality of life that their parents did.

WTF?

Seriously, what do we mean by "quality of life"? How can that concept be meaningfully applied across generations and among groups of people? Certainly demographers, sociologists, and politicians dance on the head of that pin constantly but that doesn't make them right.

Problem is that "quality of life" seems to be popularly translated into "how much stuff can I possibly accumulate just because it's new or my friends don't have it regardless of my ability to pay for it or the costs to the environment."

The holiday season, especially Christmas, crystallizes this distinction with frighteningly clarity. We're called on to buy-buy-buy so that the thirsts of our collective "quality of life" can be slaked.

If a high "quality of life" demands slavering, blind entitlement to the next big (usually expensive) thing that some advertiser has bamboozled you into believing you need, then by all means, join the herd of cattle who trample a Wal-Mart worker to death on Black Friday.

If a slip in "quality of life" translates into having only a 42, 46, and 48-inch flat panel Plasma TV from each of eight different manufacturers to choose from, then I'm all for that fall.

If the body politic's "quality of life" is dependent on being able to choose from a slew of SUVs all with abysmal MPG ratings, then I willingly seek a drop in "quality of life."

If "quality of life" means that I have to save up for an item, rather than heedlessly put it on a credit card, then put me down as a self-denying ascetic.

If "quality of life" is tied to having the "Poop Patrol" come to my home to scoop up my dog's excrement (for a price) or if I have to get someone come to my home to sanitize my garbage cans (for a price) then, great, fine, count me among the economic Luddites.

If a slip in "quality of life" means even fewer people can get meaningful healthcare at an affordable price, then that's a tragedy and not a slip I'm willing to accept.

If "quality of life" means acceptance of poisonous air and water, then that's also not acceptable.

If "quality of life" entails a selfish, callous disregard for the planet and the fragile systems on which we all depend, well, is that really a question?