That's not what self-relaince is. Nobody is self-reliant by that definition because even people trained for wilderness survival will die from some mundane thing without modern medicine.
Self-reliance is when you can contribute enough to society on your own to get the things required to live in return without hand-outs.
This. There are other forms of altruism than charity. Being born to privilege is a pretty large subsidy towards sufficiency. Caring for your own children is a form of altruism.
The poster seems to express an affinity towards Objectivist thinking based on some other comments (I wouldn't assume an ideology they haven't overtly claimed.), but has a very narrow definition of what altruism is. I would argue that this is a problem, because objectivism and its usefulness to society depends almost entirely on how you think of altruism.
Proponents of the viewpoint in general are very dismissive of things like paying for the care of the diseased, even when there's a strong and perfectly reasonable objectivist argument that you should do so purely out of self-interest because of how diseases live and are spread.
Self-reliance is when you can contribute enough to society on your own to get the things required to live in return without hand-outs.