Thank you for including the footnote. I sense more of self-limitation than external limits in Donella Meadows work. And, of course, thank you for this whole essay. You have planted a seed for much more thought.
I just decided to give a read to this post from "way back" on January 13th and I am very glad I did. Thanks again, Max, and for once again bringing forward some Indigenous perspective on these matters. We really need to more deeply consider how we assess and determine the acceptable limits of our behaviors, including all that we do that makes us complicit in perpetuating the destruction of our only source of real, natural life. But we need to also deeply examine our motivations and life goals that determine what we find acceptable. Are the limits that we accept acceptable to Mother Earth and all of our interconnected relations (a.k.a., "species")? Is our primary consideration what we can do to "promote [or, protect and regenerate] more life," as that Anishinabeg elder said? Or is it more like what you and your co-authors pointed out in your eye-opening book, "Bright Green Lies," that some "environmentalists" say: that we need to switch to "green energy devices" as quickly as possible for the dubious purpose of "saving civilization?"
Just one small concern here regarding your statement that the concepts of ecological footprint and nine planetary boundaries are "implying that any destruction up to the specified threshold is by definition acceptable." There probably are many people who see it that way, but when I speak or write about those concepts, I do so as a warning regarding what will inevitably happen if we continue on the trajectory of this so-called modern industrial "way of life" (way of anti-life, or way of death). I do not see it as a license to continue in those ways up to some sort of allegedly "safe boundary," or limit that is acceptable for the status quo modern industrial culture. I advocate instead for abandoning that culture and returning to the Original Instructions, while we still can.
Thank you George! I completely agree. That’s how I’ve perceived it as well, but I think there is a truth that some see ecological limits as externally imposed and to-be-overcome. It’s sad, really, the level of disconnection from source.
This point is really important Max! I see it through the same lens I see everything in politics - distortion. I've come to think that if something appears in the wisdom traditions often enough - like the idea of a limitless universe - then it is probably true. And if it has problematic cultural expressions, then those are probably distortions that follow our primary identifications. And our job is to find our way back to the truth by extracting the identifications. Which indeed leads us to an abundant universe requiring self-limitation (cultivated with aparigraha in yoga, or restriction in Kabbalah, fasting in many traditions) to enjoy. Thanks for making the distinction. I've come in with my own opining but it's because it's exciting to see you address this!
It’s challenging for people to understand, I think because we’ve been raised inside capitalism, with a scarcity mindset — which is the necessary flip-side of an insatiable appetite for growth and wealth. When we place definite self-limitation on our desires, then abundance is the lived reality.
Perhaps! I love how this is all taught in the tradition of Kabbalah. In Kabbalah, the Desire to Receive is all-important. It's kind of what we *are*. Having, like, massive Desire to Receive is good - a sign of life. Spiritual appetite, fuel. Actually Sadhguru once said, "You should have desires so big you can't possibly fulfil them in your lifetime." I love that.
In Kabbalah (I think this is common across all traditions, but Kabbalah makes it so clear), in our natural state we Desire to Receive in Order to Share. But this energy has become distorted into Desire to Receive for the Self Alone. Perhaps the biggest challenge in each of our lives is to restrict our Desire to Receive for the Self Alone, so we can purify our Desire, and convert it back into this much more powerful Desire to Receive in Order to Share.
It's difficult, because Desire to Receive for the Self Alone kind of plagues us. In Kabbalah it's like it has a voice - referred to as Satan - who always has a bunch of reasons and justifications why we're entitled to this thing, and deserve it, and nobody's watching, etc. It's the wetiko sickness.
I love all this wisdom because just as much as it doesn't require us to live in a 'limited' universe, it also frees us from the tyranny of self-denial and austerity. Freedom from Selfish Desire, from enslavement to meaningless selfish cravings and the substances that trigger them, makes the world actually enjoyable, and life a gift we naturally want to share and contribute to. Wanted to share this!
But Max, if there were no limits that would mean there would be less rules and regulations and policy wonks. This would severely limit bureaucracy and the legions of managers needed to process, measure, compile reports and run focus groups.
Thanks, Max. Been reflecting on efficiency, specifically from an animal's efficiency to not use up much energy to harvest food or make a shelter, and also reflecting on the use of technology to increase efficiency gains and profits in industrialization. This is helping me reflect on efficiency and limits, appreciate this.
Self-restraint, starting with potty-training, is a primary requirement of community. Doing it because we can is the absurd rule of self-destructive hubristic society.
Thanks, Max. My husband and I (senior citizens with a limited budget) need to move from our wonderful rental of 14+ years. I find myself insisting on garden space, a washing machine, a grocery store within walking distance, a wired landline far from cell towers, battery storage systems, wind turbines, solar PVs and data centers...all at a price we can afford. Honestly, such a place may no longer exist--at any price. I need to accept 2026's realities. I'd welcome hearing what other people do to limit themselves.
And, as usual, no mention of the number one reason for our imposing limits on our reproduction and overconsumption: the children of tomorrow, or not. Fortunately, a recent survey (Gallup?) found that 47% of Americans 18-50yo are planning on NOT reproducing, but, sadly, fertility is still exploding in Africa. My best friend in college was a black African and I worked for Dr. King, so save the "racist" BS. When do we ever think of the unborn, unconceived children being born into a dying world already in a state of climate collapse? Never? Hmmmm?
Ya but, I have been watching silver prices. I decided to get a Robinhood account "just to play with". In essence gambling as entertainment. I watched this "greed" shadow enter my spirit. The stock market is all about limits. It feels like an addiction. Tastes like more. Silent Spring irritated the Epstein class, but Limits to Growth was an existential threat to them. It is the promise they will lose. As an exdrunk I can tell you denial is powerful.
Seems to me the difference is an environment movement that places humanity above nature. Which 99% seem to do. We create national parks to have places to vacation in. We worry what climate change will do to real estate in Florida, not what it will do to sage hens.
Maybe I don't comprehend the story. But my limiting or any individual's limits seems doomed to fail. If I don't drive gas prices go down and my red neck neighbor can afford to drive his F-250 to the hills and spend the weekend chasing deer with his ATV's and shooting his AR at midnight.
Hey Dennis, thank you for writing. I wrote about that greed shadow here: https://maxwilbert.substack.com/p/weve-become-business-partners-in. I agree with you on a lot of this. But I don't agree that limitation is doomed to fail. In this context and culture, yes. But with the right culture around it, it can succeed very well (one example of this: https://animistsramblings.substack.com/p/swiddening-in-the-21st-century). Nonetheless, the fact that as long as this culture continues, we will not on the whole accept self-limitation is the essence of the wetiko psychosis and the strongest argument I know of for deliberately dismantling industrial civilization.
Frankly I can't imagine a world in which these things are not self-evident, and I suppose that's why I can't communicate and people keep telling me I am wrong, but isn't this what I have been saying all along? The bottom line is, though, that it is not possible for humans NOW to achieve any of our necessary other limits without first limiting the population. It no longer matters if we starve ourselves individually, even, there will remain too many people to limit anything else unless we all starve ourselves. Which, compared with the luxury of our culture, is what is happening and will happen unless we limit our populations to a level the biosystem is physically able to support and if we don't then IT will starve US, so basically we have no choice. It will happen one way or another, and why we waste our time expounding the obvious I cannot conprehend. But I did my best for y'all.
Population is definitely going to be lower sometime in the future. The question is, will we take measures to preserve human rights and justice in the face of this, or will it be uncontrolled? We seem to mostly be headed for the second scenario. Accelerating into the bonfire.
Yes indeed. I was thinking about preventing extinction as being primary. I feel like we are prioritizing human rights over survival. We can't have human rights without humans. And we can't have human rights with overpopulation, so yes, there is also little or no chance of ending up with human rights.
Thank you for including the footnote. I sense more of self-limitation than external limits in Donella Meadows work. And, of course, thank you for this whole essay. You have planted a seed for much more thought.
Absolutely. Thank you, Mark. Please share any more thoughts as they come.
Don't is a word not employed nearly enough.
Cheekily, don't forget to pass this article on to friends and family!
Definitely.
I just decided to give a read to this post from "way back" on January 13th and I am very glad I did. Thanks again, Max, and for once again bringing forward some Indigenous perspective on these matters. We really need to more deeply consider how we assess and determine the acceptable limits of our behaviors, including all that we do that makes us complicit in perpetuating the destruction of our only source of real, natural life. But we need to also deeply examine our motivations and life goals that determine what we find acceptable. Are the limits that we accept acceptable to Mother Earth and all of our interconnected relations (a.k.a., "species")? Is our primary consideration what we can do to "promote [or, protect and regenerate] more life," as that Anishinabeg elder said? Or is it more like what you and your co-authors pointed out in your eye-opening book, "Bright Green Lies," that some "environmentalists" say: that we need to switch to "green energy devices" as quickly as possible for the dubious purpose of "saving civilization?"
Just one small concern here regarding your statement that the concepts of ecological footprint and nine planetary boundaries are "implying that any destruction up to the specified threshold is by definition acceptable." There probably are many people who see it that way, but when I speak or write about those concepts, I do so as a warning regarding what will inevitably happen if we continue on the trajectory of this so-called modern industrial "way of life" (way of anti-life, or way of death). I do not see it as a license to continue in those ways up to some sort of allegedly "safe boundary," or limit that is acceptable for the status quo modern industrial culture. I advocate instead for abandoning that culture and returning to the Original Instructions, while we still can.
Thank you George! I completely agree. That’s how I’ve perceived it as well, but I think there is a truth that some see ecological limits as externally imposed and to-be-overcome. It’s sad, really, the level of disconnection from source.
This point is really important Max! I see it through the same lens I see everything in politics - distortion. I've come to think that if something appears in the wisdom traditions often enough - like the idea of a limitless universe - then it is probably true. And if it has problematic cultural expressions, then those are probably distortions that follow our primary identifications. And our job is to find our way back to the truth by extracting the identifications. Which indeed leads us to an abundant universe requiring self-limitation (cultivated with aparigraha in yoga, or restriction in Kabbalah, fasting in many traditions) to enjoy. Thanks for making the distinction. I've come in with my own opining but it's because it's exciting to see you address this!
Thanks for reading, Renee!
It’s challenging for people to understand, I think because we’ve been raised inside capitalism, with a scarcity mindset — which is the necessary flip-side of an insatiable appetite for growth and wealth. When we place definite self-limitation on our desires, then abundance is the lived reality.
Perhaps! I love how this is all taught in the tradition of Kabbalah. In Kabbalah, the Desire to Receive is all-important. It's kind of what we *are*. Having, like, massive Desire to Receive is good - a sign of life. Spiritual appetite, fuel. Actually Sadhguru once said, "You should have desires so big you can't possibly fulfil them in your lifetime." I love that.
In Kabbalah (I think this is common across all traditions, but Kabbalah makes it so clear), in our natural state we Desire to Receive in Order to Share. But this energy has become distorted into Desire to Receive for the Self Alone. Perhaps the biggest challenge in each of our lives is to restrict our Desire to Receive for the Self Alone, so we can purify our Desire, and convert it back into this much more powerful Desire to Receive in Order to Share.
It's difficult, because Desire to Receive for the Self Alone kind of plagues us. In Kabbalah it's like it has a voice - referred to as Satan - who always has a bunch of reasons and justifications why we're entitled to this thing, and deserve it, and nobody's watching, etc. It's the wetiko sickness.
I love all this wisdom because just as much as it doesn't require us to live in a 'limited' universe, it also frees us from the tyranny of self-denial and austerity. Freedom from Selfish Desire, from enslavement to meaningless selfish cravings and the substances that trigger them, makes the world actually enjoyable, and life a gift we naturally want to share and contribute to. Wanted to share this!
Thank you for sharing this!
But Max, if there were no limits that would mean there would be less rules and regulations and policy wonks. This would severely limit bureaucracy and the legions of managers needed to process, measure, compile reports and run focus groups.
You are playing with madness here, man!
I’m a madman!
Thanks, Max. Been reflecting on efficiency, specifically from an animal's efficiency to not use up much energy to harvest food or make a shelter, and also reflecting on the use of technology to increase efficiency gains and profits in industrialization. This is helping me reflect on efficiency and limits, appreciate this.
You're welcome. You might also appreciate this one, where I wrote directly about that topic (I also linked this in the piece above): https://maxwilbert.substack.com/p/efficiency-is-bad-for-the-planet
Always answering people I do not live large. When they ask about my small house.
Leaving the earth to the next seven generations. May there be enough.
I alone am not able to keep that promise.
Really great philosophy here Max❣️
Thank you, Maura.
Excellent essay, Max. Thank you.
Thanks, glad you appreciated it.
Self-restraint, starting with potty-training, is a primary requirement of community. Doing it because we can is the absurd rule of self-destructive hubristic society.
Absolutely.
Thanks, Max. My husband and I (senior citizens with a limited budget) need to move from our wonderful rental of 14+ years. I find myself insisting on garden space, a washing machine, a grocery store within walking distance, a wired landline far from cell towers, battery storage systems, wind turbines, solar PVs and data centers...all at a price we can afford. Honestly, such a place may no longer exist--at any price. I need to accept 2026's realities. I'd welcome hearing what other people do to limit themselves.
Challenging situation Katie. Sending all my best for your move.
And, as usual, no mention of the number one reason for our imposing limits on our reproduction and overconsumption: the children of tomorrow, or not. Fortunately, a recent survey (Gallup?) found that 47% of Americans 18-50yo are planning on NOT reproducing, but, sadly, fertility is still exploding in Africa. My best friend in college was a black African and I worked for Dr. King, so save the "racist" BS. When do we ever think of the unborn, unconceived children being born into a dying world already in a state of climate collapse? Never? Hmmmm?
Ya but, I have been watching silver prices. I decided to get a Robinhood account "just to play with". In essence gambling as entertainment. I watched this "greed" shadow enter my spirit. The stock market is all about limits. It feels like an addiction. Tastes like more. Silent Spring irritated the Epstein class, but Limits to Growth was an existential threat to them. It is the promise they will lose. As an exdrunk I can tell you denial is powerful.
Seems to me the difference is an environment movement that places humanity above nature. Which 99% seem to do. We create national parks to have places to vacation in. We worry what climate change will do to real estate in Florida, not what it will do to sage hens.
Maybe I don't comprehend the story. But my limiting or any individual's limits seems doomed to fail. If I don't drive gas prices go down and my red neck neighbor can afford to drive his F-250 to the hills and spend the weekend chasing deer with his ATV's and shooting his AR at midnight.
Hey Dennis, thank you for writing. I wrote about that greed shadow here: https://maxwilbert.substack.com/p/weve-become-business-partners-in. I agree with you on a lot of this. But I don't agree that limitation is doomed to fail. In this context and culture, yes. But with the right culture around it, it can succeed very well (one example of this: https://animistsramblings.substack.com/p/swiddening-in-the-21st-century). Nonetheless, the fact that as long as this culture continues, we will not on the whole accept self-limitation is the essence of the wetiko psychosis and the strongest argument I know of for deliberately dismantling industrial civilization.
A very relevant article since many people are searching for blame to the predicament we are in.
https://frankmoone.substack.com/p/scientific-mysticism
Thanks Carl, I'll check it out.
Frankly I can't imagine a world in which these things are not self-evident, and I suppose that's why I can't communicate and people keep telling me I am wrong, but isn't this what I have been saying all along? The bottom line is, though, that it is not possible for humans NOW to achieve any of our necessary other limits without first limiting the population. It no longer matters if we starve ourselves individually, even, there will remain too many people to limit anything else unless we all starve ourselves. Which, compared with the luxury of our culture, is what is happening and will happen unless we limit our populations to a level the biosystem is physically able to support and if we don't then IT will starve US, so basically we have no choice. It will happen one way or another, and why we waste our time expounding the obvious I cannot conprehend. But I did my best for y'all.
Population is definitely going to be lower sometime in the future. The question is, will we take measures to preserve human rights and justice in the face of this, or will it be uncontrolled? We seem to mostly be headed for the second scenario. Accelerating into the bonfire.
Yes indeed. I was thinking about preventing extinction as being primary. I feel like we are prioritizing human rights over survival. We can't have human rights without humans. And we can't have human rights with overpopulation, so yes, there is also little or no chance of ending up with human rights.