You know... this question's been nagging at me since I first saw it, lol. I'm not entirely sure how to answer, but if you're referring to "will I sacrifice my own personal comfort in favor of the progress of others?" You know what... No. Absolutely not, and I'm getting rather sick of the implication we should be required to.
At present, I'm not doing that well myself, but I've done better in the past, and shortly I'll be back to work and doing okay at least, once again. Nothing has ever been handed to me. My parents couldn't afford to pay for college and I wasn't "given" the opportunity to get a scholarship. So I did the next best thing and joined the Army. While all my peers were partying and continuing to live off their parents dime, I was serving my country while bettering myself and providing for the opportunities I now enjoy.
Everything I've ever had, from my first car to the computer I'm typing this on to the food on my family's table, I've busted my arse to get.
I wanted it, I was willing to work for it, and I got it. Why should I be required to "sacrifice" any of it for those who aren't willing to earn it?
Not all, but unquestionably the majority of the "have nots" in the U.S. are in the position they are by choice, whether they realize or acknowledge it or not. They are jealous of the "haves", but not willing to take the necessary steps to improve their own situation.
Meanwhile, the politicians use that jealousy to get elected, then institute policies that ensure the continuation of the "have nots" predicament to facilitate their continued and perpetual reelection. It's a disgusting cycle that just continues to repeat itself.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself what is the ultimate goal and function of our welfare system? To help people actually rise out of poverty and stand on their own two feet, or to provide them an endless pitance that does just enough to keep them afloat but nothing to actually help them improve their situation?
In any case, I'm all for charity, donated plenty myself during my better years. I'm all for taking common sense steps to protect the planet. I have no issue with the strong defending the well-being (not welfare) of the weak. But "progress" is a very subjective term... who get's to define what it means? What entity gets to decide who will sacrifice what "comforts", and for who's "progress"?
Those are the questions I would need answered before I would even consider making broad range sacrifices. And quite frankly, the prospective answers to those questions bother me to the point of being able to fairly confidently say, no, I won't make (unnecessary) sacrifices for (subjectively percieved) progress.