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.
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?
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.
Don't is a word not employed nearly enough.
Cheekily, don't forget to pass this article on to friends and family!
Definitely.
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.
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?
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.