This is rather pessimistic, trivializes the argument and assumes that it’s directed only at individuals.
Doing less doesn’t have to mean it’s only an individual’s responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is a category of potential solutions to much bigger problems.
Relying on individuals will never move the needle very far.
This is the opposite of assuming it’s directed only at individuals. I’m saying we are already doing this, systematically, at massive scale. What it looks like is people fleeing particular regions, turned from farmer or industrial worker to… “doing less.” It looks like mass migration and failed states. This happens either because the economics cease to make sense (the sort of levers any systematic solution would have available), or ecological facts require it (the sort of solution that will be forced upon us in lieu of action).
In either case, it’s clear that the “doing less” approaches are bound to start with the people who are already doing the least.
> In either case, it’s clear that the “doing less” approaches are bound to start with the people who are already doing the least.
This is not clear, and does not logically follow anything that preceded it.
If you constrain "doing less" to a very specific and restrictive definition of who/what this means, then perhaps. But as a general approach to solving certain kinds of problems, this can take many forms:
- Policy decisions
- Social movements
- Creation of new product categories that remove prior requirements for more
And it's also not necessarily always just a "thing", but a mindset, or another lens through which to consider options for solving burning problems.
Doing less doesn’t have to mean it’s only an individual’s responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is a category of potential solutions to much bigger problems.
Relying on individuals will never move the needle very far.