I would like to draw attention to the concept of 'minimalistic living' which I read all throughout the personal stories of men who are moving away from investing in or being in relationship (mgtow, the red pill etc.) where I really don't know why, but found a silver lining about how this concept indeed are precursor to what we call 'sustainable way of living' at individual or micro level.

Problem is, many of the studies done by scientists have indicated men are contributing more to the climate change than women: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/21/men-cause-more-climate-emissions-than-women-study-finds , but I really find those research poorly peer-viewed and proper scrutiny about their methodologies followed remains to be absent (e.g., did the researchers considered the emission levels due to consumption of cosmetics also, if yes then in whose section they have included it, men 'as manufacturer' or women 'as consumer'?)

Well all those papers and research are debatable, but my real concern is not that for now. My point is how men considering themselves to be going their own way, or away from having relationships with women, or abolishing their traditional way of making a family for themselves centered around getting married, having wife and children and all, are making a different way of living in which much of their resources they are able to earn, are consumed as much quantity required for their survival, and keeping rest to it for their future use (say post retirement times). This is indeed a good choice in terms of sustainability because being in a relationship or having a family also contributes to more emission per person. So more you consume, more you cause emissions and less contribution towards sustainability.

Imagine two scenarios:

A man doing a decent job, having good and decent earning comes in a relation with someone. Now he have to invest more in dates and trips a bit more often, and you know, how much it adds to emissions: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dining-out-dessert-and-booze-may-be-worse-for-climate-change-than-meat-2019-12-26 . Then he marries and have kids, he now has a family, so he requires a house for the space of a family, have more than three stomachs to feed and as you know, infants and children never come with innate education of sustainable living: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/aug/04/population-climate-change-birth-rates

Now the second case (I found no resource for proving my point since the society and feminism see mgtow, red pilled and MRAs to be extremistic, misogynistic communities only, and they just get blind to the ground philosophy within), a man going his own way has a decent job and good earning. He stays away from dating or being in a relationship, so his frequency of visits to restaurants is minimized (don't know how to cook, please learn it, it's really fun !) as well as his bill to be payed is minimized. He requires a space enough for living for his own. Gasoline is costly? switch to electric vehicle or have fun doing cycling (helpful for saving money). He have himself to feed and take care of only, so less consumption, less material and carbon footprint, less emission. Cosmetics (are you crazy?), not required ! Fanciful clothing to attract ladies, which also become old fashioned for them within months, not required. Fond of gardening ? Its good as you become carbon negative. Children ? what about having a pet? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-your-dogs-carbon-pawprint/?sh=23599b9f13a6 (go through this article carefully !). Ofcourse, he may go for having fun and adventure, but the frequency would be obviously less than any other guy in traditional roles.

Now people here in this sub or other related subs may ask 'why do we do so?', in other sense, 'why do we think about sustainability for a society which always applauds women for whatever they do, but we are always at the receiving end in case of blames ?' Infact that was the first question came to my mind. What I just thought is that recently it had came to for about the study on prediction of global collapse by 2040, as done by MIT in 1970 https://www.livescience.com/collapse-human-society-limits-to-growth.html . If we just remove the picture at macro or social level, then we can say that the newly culminating concept of 'minimalistic living' shown by those going their own way would be able to survive and sustain in our very own way, irrespective of what happens to the society or economy. Minimizing our current usage of resources and saving for our future will indeed help for our survival, knowingly or unknowingly.

If you ask about the phenomenon 'Where are all the good men?' I can just say 'good men are trying their best to save the humanity...' What do you guys think?