Others have pointed out how odd it is that you take degrowth to be an individual prescription. I want to address the notion that most people simply want to get by and won’t make sacrifices which impinge their comfort or wellness. This says nothing about the ability of changes to be imposed, by Man or Nature. Everyone in Russia 1917 didn’t hate the Czar or want a new system, but instability grew until the extremist minority which did want to impose a radical change was able to execute that.

As for solving climate change caused by technologies, systemic degrowth is a far better solution than furthering technological dependency. Firstly, complex modern tech is issued to the world by those with power, because it benefits them, whether or not humanity and Nature benefit from the experiment (we usually do not). Secondly, "degrowth" which eradicates the technological and industrial causes of our existential crisis is magnitudes easier than developing a complex technology to solve our problems - and such would not enhance individual autonomy or human freedom from oversight and control, nor can technologies ever be made without diminishing wild Nature, and worsening our biodiversity crisis. Those new technologies, like all before them, will be consequences presently unforseeable. And finally, more technologies will only impede reconnection of humans with Nature, necessary for physical and mental health of our species which evolved as a branch of apes, not adapted to constant sitting and looking at backlit screens among asphalt and concrete and glass and plastic.

Techno-industrial society offers us nothing we need, at the cost of the essential natural world. "The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."