As I see it, no one from the self-sufficiency faction could put their plans into action if it were not for the others, the non-self-sufficiency faction.

For a self-sufficiency lifestyle, you need a house and a piece of land. Capital that you have from somewhere. The source of the money has either been your employment or a speculative opportunity - also built into the system - of money multiplication or accumulation. This platform here is part of the system because it works through electricity supply and internet access.

The tools to create a permaculture landscape, for example, cannot be mastered without modern methods and technologies if you want to be off the grid (solar panels or generators, for example, which are products of mass production). The self-suppliers are a minority and they cannot become the majority, otherwise regression would have to happen. That would be dangerous for everyone, including the self-suppliers.

Since your thesis that most will not be is correct, I would disagree with the undertone that it sounds like (and also in the comments) as if we are talking about people to be divided - i.e. those who are good and those who are not.

If you are too pleased with what you think you are doing right, you forget that others who do not leave their zones do not automatically do it wrong. I would say that a mutual conditionality reveals itself here.

To put it bluntly, the lifestyle of the self-sufficient is possible precisely because so few put it into practice. And then, if you examine the term more closely, it is also not entirely correct because none of these people are really self-sufficient, since everyone needs at least an access route, a road, to get holdof the necessities of life such as gasoline, salt, sugar, flour and many other things. A person who does not have to make a trip to town/to the shop in order to survive lives outside of civilisation and then probably belongs to a species that is hardly ever found on this globe (exceptions prove the rule).