I probably wasn’t clear enough. I don’t feel guilty because of my life style, I feel like I’m in a trap. What would happen with me and my family if power grid goes down for a week? What about a month?

The point is, we can probably have best of both worlds if we accept lifestyle change (IMO simple life close to nature is an improvement, not degradation) where we enjoy the benefits of technology, but not being dependent on it.

Think living in a village, spending very little, eating non processed, locally grown food, working remotely, driving a car maybe a couple of times per month to visit friends and do some shopping and that’s it.

I’d like to do that not because I feel responsible for climate change, inequality or whatever, but for personal security, longevity, and quality of life reasons.

Edit: side effects of this lifestyle are less co2, less pollution, resilient local economy and much more.

>I’d like to do that not because I feel responsible for climate change, inequality or whatever, but for personal security, longevity, and quality of life reasons.

Yes, the individual is not separate from society.

You cannot separate climate change from your "personal security, longevity, and quality of life". They all depend on the climate not changing.

And yes, you are in a trap. You are unable to escape your conditioning. You could live the way you want right now. It will be hard, but you can do it. Lead by example and all that....

THIS!!!

Trank you

This is ridiculous. You are expecting people to take aassive downgrade in standard of living. I spend years working to make more money than everybody so I can live better, not worse. And you are wrong, my kids will live much better as well, because I will pass on that money.

You need a global frame of reference to solve a global problem. You can get one on your own terms, or wait and be domesticated by legislation.

Legislation? That seems like a long shot to me, especially in the US. I just can’t see voters asking for that legislation anytime soon.

Believe it or not, most Americans won't vote to substantially reduce their own standard of living. Maybe other people's, but not theirs.

> be domesticated

Fuck that. That's possibly the most condescending and demeaning way you could have phrased it. But I'm assuming you knew that and did it intentionally.

You seem to have 'standard' and 'quality' conflated in regards to 'living'.

Standards of living are always increasing because of people's incorrect belief that everyone must live like a king.

Quality of living or life as it were, is more about making sure that whatever standard you live at is providing the best quality it can offer for that life.

You are seeking a higher 'quality' of life, through increasing your standard of living. This WILL result in a higher quality of life, provided you have all the necessary funds to support it. Absolutely. BUT, it comes at costs that you and others will not always see or understand immediately or even as fast as might be preferred on even slower scales.

Meanwhile, if you instead just sought a higher quality of life only, you would be likely be fine with some things being at a slightly lower standard. Such as using transit more often, instead of driving everywhere. You don't have to not own a vehicle; you just have to not drive it needlessly. Make sense?

Yes, I realize that reduces the convenience factor of the vehicle, and yes I realize that transit is often terrible... but the latter is often because it has to compete with the former. Not just in regards to road space, but also personal space. So I admit that there are things that need to be fixed on that side as well. Separate cabins within transit train systems would be a good start I think.

Either or, the fact remains that many of us are able to find ways to get around in society and do things that you do as well. We just don't pollute as much. We live just as well in some ways, maybe not as well in others. But overall we have a roof over our heads, food in our bellies, and half decent clothes at best covering us up. (Disregarding the homeless problem of course... 1 problem at a time...)

So anyways, the main point remains. Quality of life is more important than whatever standard of living you think you prefer to live at; because ultimately if your standard of living isn't giving you the quality you seek, then it's not worth it.

So you are saying maximize quality of life at a given standard of living? Fine, but the maximum quality of life at a higher standard is greater than the maximum quality of life at a lower standard. Are you disputing that? There's also that achieving maximum quality of life at a given standard is hard, increasing standard of living can actually be easier.

If a majority of the world thought like you, what do you think the outcome would be? Well, you can see it all around you; micro plastics, climate change, endless wars, etc...

A massive "downgrade" in living is coming regardless of the money you hoard. Maybe not for your kids, but most probably for your grandkids. Even in the short term, looks like a recession is coming based on mortgage rates hitting 5%.

I appreciate the concern and care you have for your children, but setting them up with such a high standard of living will only lead to them suffering.

And you might call my lifestyle a downgrade. That is what everyone keeps telling me.