If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
Sure, fine, whatever. You do you.
I think there are very few people who could spend 40 years painting warhammer figurines and call that a rewarding satisfying life.
Why are you so skeptical? I could spend 40 years doing:
There is so much more to life than work and paid services.
And yes, this is a privileged position, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
I’m not suggesting that it’s “wrong”, merely that over time these things wouldn’t be satisfying for most people. I suspect that even you would find that life unfulfilling.
It’s one of life’s great questions and I don’t really expect to be able to find a consensus with you.
Loads of people, perhaps even most people, would describe the list of activites you’ve presented as being the ideal recipe for long term contentment and happiness.
However, most people can simultaneously acknowledge that contentment and happiness is fleeting, intangible, and unstable. I’m sure you’ve thought of the “new car” example - it’s great for a few weeks.
People tend to think they want “happiness” but in practice actually pursue other desires, like being challenged, being needed, being engaged with complex situations and problems. I’m not saying this is good or correct or better, it’s just how I observe humans really behave.
If I had no responsibilities, and sufficient wealth to live off passive income, I might plan to do as you say for a year or so, but during that year hope to identify some kind of direction I could devote the rest of my life to.