HN will suggest we solve this complication problem with yet another layer of technology. This sort of complication like a ratchet; it only goes one way. I am with the author here, but so many people love this complicated world. If they could be more packed in, more distracted, have even greater abundance most people would choose that option every time.
For individuals, all you can choose to do is simplify your home life. This is an imperfect solution, but the world around you will only be moving in the other direction.
No, the solution usually creates a caste of citizens unaware that they would not even exist without it,vehemently protesting against the solutions because of sideeffects.
Take the imperialism of old: people did not do this because beeing evil is fun.
They did this because beeing exponential in a linear world produces conflict anyway and to dim the lights elsewhere allowed you to keep the civilizations lights on in the heartland longer.
People fought wars for fertilizer. Now you have hippies protesting against fertilizer made with harber bosch, who would kill each other as some north korean stunted growth dwarfs in imperial wars if they would get their wish.
I’ve heard this idea but don’t believe it was actually a serious claim? Surely it’s only ever been more of a post-hoc PR kind of justification for the massive energy use that nobody genuinely believes?
For individuals, all you can choose to do is simplify your home life. This is an imperfect solution, but the world around you will only be moving in the other direction.