That's a sweeping misunderstanding of what I wrote, so I'd ask that you re-read what I said in response to the specific quote.

Why don't you read this comment and see if you have the same energy for hamburger eaters that you do for people with websites over 14kb. Because if you don't, it's obvious you're looking to sweat people who actually care about their environmental impact over absolutely nothing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44614291

FYI, it's not Whataboutism to say there are more effective things to focus on.

(this was actually stated in agreement with the original poster, who you clearly misunderstood, so there's no "what-about" involved here. They were condemning all kinds of consumption, including the frivolous ones I mentioned).

But

I'm afraid you've missed both my small point and my wider point.

My small point was to argue against the parent's comment that

>>reducing ressources consumption to the minimum required should always be a concern if we intend to have a sustainable future

I disagree with this concept on the basis that nothing can be accomplished on a large scale if the primary concern is simply to reduce resource consumption to a minimum. If you care to disagree with that, then please address it.

The larger point was that this theory leads inexorably to the idea that humans should just kill themselves or disappear; and it almost always comes from people who themselves want to kill themselves or disappear.