"You need to ditch this idea of complete independence because its an unobtainable goal. If you want to be independant go buys some seeds and a couple of cows and a piece of land and get back to me in a few years on your home-made computer. good luck." (sic)
In a consumer economy such as what you find in the United States and, indeed, "idustrialized" countries, it is very easy to accept that people need to rely on each other for the modern conveniences to which they have become accustomed.
But don't lose focus; 1.3 billion people in the world today live on less than a dollar a day, if even there was a way to measure it. Another 2 billion would be considered living under poverty among the standards of the U.S.'s rampant consumer economy, where at least 90% of the population at any given time in the future will be able to afford drinkable running water, a decent place to stay with electricity, and clean food from a supermarket.
But those 3.3 billion or so people, half of the world, don't live under consumer economies and don't need readily packaged, refrigerated food or prescription drugs (though they could use basic medical attention) or even cars! Yes, it's true; these people are either self-sustaining, or they are starving in a country where it is deemed archaic to be that way.
The model of a consumer-based economy presented to these people by the industrialized world does not work for everyone. Moreover, it is not a vital necessity for life. It's just more conveniant. "Give me convenience or give me death" would be the appropriate tag-line for the kind of society that makes it neccessary for one to not have to provide basic needs for oneself. Granted: the people living in a consumer economy can and probably should take advantage of the advanced system they have been graced with --barring any moral objections to the way things are run, a common concern for people who fight such conveniences. But those other 3.3 billion people either don't care to live in such a world, wish they were, or are forced to adapt to it slowly by *restructuring programs that the IMF and World Bank set forth, whether or not they have the will to.
Indeed, some people in the United States may take the idea too far considering the easier alternatives set before them, but no one said life had to be, or was intended to be, easy. In fact, for an incredible amount of people, it's difficult just to get by day-by-day, even in a modern society. It's just that some people choose not to be dependent on another force to allow them to continue living a certain way, and would rather have themselves to rely on if the going ever got tough.
For the rest of the people in the world though, it's a way of life, and a respectable one. Most of humanity today either lives under a third-world regime or live in conditions similar to it. Think of the 2 billion people in China and India. Do you think, for a second, that all of them have cars, good clothing and access to the nearby Wal-Mart Supercenter? Forget it. There isn't a system in this world efficient enough to provide a modern lifestyle, complete with air conditioning and cheap gasoline, for everyone. It is, however, possible to provide people with enough food to live, good shelter if not entirely "sound" based on the American middle-class standard, and stable surroundings in which to live.
It's just that not everyone agrees with the idea. Not everyone is ready to sell their soul to a mass of money-mongering, profit-entrenched entities who pose as helpful and beneficial to mankind, when in fact their main purpose is to increase productivity to provide as much growth as possible, with the consumer being a close second (in some, lately most, cases). Some wish to remain in their shacks, with their seeds, a few cows, and (if they're lucky) their own land. America was once like that, that's why in 1803 Jefferson decided to overstep his Constitutional bounds and double the area of the country overnight, to develop the kind of society that you described at the end of your writeup, no comply.
Sure, it's obsolete here in America, but it's the basics of survival. Independence is a reliable way to live, even if you aren't as connected with your fellow man as you would sitting at a computer with the TV on and a glass of purified water on your nice desk next to you
...as i am.
*(Note: This kind of "restructuring" only makes the third-world country a puppet for the industrial powers to manufacture on their land, with their people, for the sake of increasing their own wealth, not benefiting the people of the third-world, but that's a completely separate node...)