What do you think?
Rate this book
Limits: Why Malthus Was Wrong and Why Environmentalists Should Care
Western culture is infatuated with the dream of going beyond, even as it is increasingly haunted by the specter of apocalypse: drought, famine, nuclear winter. How did we come to think of the planet and its limits as we do? This book reclaims, redefines, and makes an impassioned plea for limits—a notion central to environmentalism—clearing them from their association with Malthusianism and the ideology and politics that go along with it. Giorgos Kallis rereads reverend-economist Thomas Robert Malthus and his legacy, separating limits and scarcity, two notions that have long been conflated in both environmental and economic thought. Limits are not something out there, a property of nature to be deciphered by scientists, but a choice that confronts us, one that, paradoxically, is part and parcel of the pursuit of freedom. Taking us from ancient Greece to Malthus, from hunter-gatherers to the Romantics, from anarchist feminists to 1970s radical environmentalists, Limits shows us how an institutionalized culture of sharing can make possible the collective self-limitation we so urgently need.
168 pages, Paperback
Published August 6, 2019
30 people are currently reading
578 people want to read
About the author
Giorgos Kallis
17 books67 followersGiorgos Kallis is an ICREA professor at ICTA, Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
April 13, 2023
This was tight af.
Malthus: Prophet of Capitalism
So, get this, Malthus was not an eco-pessimist splitting hairs about populations spinning out of control and devouring the Earth. Yes, he thought population growth was inevitable and that it would come up against a resource limit, but he believed meeting such limits drove technological developments. In fact, he believed that keeping a vast subset of people at this limit (dispossessed and starving) was a necessary motivation to drive labour. He believed that if the masses of poor were not starving, they would laze around and society would collapse.
In other words, Malthus was one of the early prophets of the free market.
Malthus's thinking goes like this: 1) It is the threat of scarcity that fosters industry 2) therefore, inequality is a necessary foundation for economic growth, 3) and economic growth is necessary to sustain population growth, 4) which is the nature of 'man.'
Malthus didn't want to cull population growth. He was Christian. He vehemently opposed birth control and the reproductive rights of women. For him, 'man's' right was to populate and dominate the Earth. Malthus wasn't an ecologist worried about sustainability—he was a reactionary theologian that saw redistribution as the greatest sin, for redistribution stops us toiling away, 24/7, for a pittance.
Theories of Scarcity: Malthus, Neoclassical Economics, and 20th Century Environmentalism
Giorgos Kallis traces the movement of such thought across three periods: 1) Malthus in the 19th century, 2) neoclassical economics across the 19th and 20th century, 3) and environmentalism in the 20th century. In all three cases, economic growth is never questioned as a social value.
For Malthus, our unlimited want is reproduction and our limited means is food production. By keeping the vast majority of people poor, we generate enough industry to overcome our limitations.
For neoclassical economists, our unlimited want is consumption and our limited means is time. We are finite beings, who cannot have everything, but this lack spurns us to keep consuming. It is, owo, simply an unfortunately part of human nature.
For 20th century environmentalists, what becomes limited is nature itself. Nature can only sustain so many people. There is, essentially, not enough for everyone. Through 20th century environmentalists, Malthus, who believed any natural limit could be overcome, is transformed into a prophet of eco-pessimism. Ironically, the solution for 20th century environmentalists was a Malthusian one: to develop greater technologies that could extract more from the Earth so as to meet population needs.
Kallis critiques all three frameworks for positing scarcity as the foundation of existence. Under a regime of scarcity, everyone takes as much as they can in fear of others taking more. We saw this with Covid and supermarkets. The tragedy of the commons is the most infamous example of this. Garrett Hardin, who popularised this idea, proposed that commons always become capitalist. He argued that if people were free to take what they want, certain individuals would begin hoarding and then selling these resources to others. This was natural. Tragic, but natural. Hardin, like Malthus, used logical arguments to get his points across. Empirical evidence of how commons operate, however, show that people do not start hoarding everything in sight. They simply take what they want and leave—the same way you take what water you need from the tap, then go back to whatever you're doing. Why? Because under a framework of abundance, the fear that there won't be enough to go around dissipates.
Theories of Abundance: Emma Goldman, and Rachel Carson
For Emma Goldman, the idea of human beings as unlimited in their desires is engendered by capitalism and militarism. Capitalism needs raw material, labourers, and markets. It lives and breathes through scarcity, by constantly positing a lack that must be filled. Capital is disconnected from social needs. It is growth for the sake of growth. This leads to all sorts of colonisations. 16th century slavery and the accumulation of bodies. 21st century social media and the accumulation of personal data. There is no end to this process. Despite the collective wealth that now exists in the world—a wealth that could feed everyone quite comfortably and grant us an abundance of leisure time—capitalism wants more.
Against capitalism (and, retroactively, 20th century environmentalism), Emma Goldman posits Mother Earth as limitless and abundant. Rachel Carson, similarly, posits nature as brimming with life. For Carson, we haven't run into a natural limit with farming—we're creating a limit through the use of pesticides. We're constricting Mother Earth of her abundance, all the wonderous, sprawling species who die in silence.
Kallis sees in both Goldman and Carson a reorientation from capitalist logics of scarcity towards a logic of abundance that stresses sharing and collaboration over accumulation and competition.
Autonomy: Democracy, and Self-Limitation
The last point worth bringing up is Kallis's issue with the term limit. For Kallis, a limit is like an affordance: it's an interfacing between an intention and an environment. A limit is not an objective out there. A limit is a navigation. If we keep living the way we're living, pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, nitrogen runoff into rivers, and microplastics into the ocean, then we will reach a limit where the biosphere can no longer sustain itself and it, along with us, will be radically transformed.
Why does this definition matter? Because if we don't think of limits as negotiable and socially-constructed, then we've merely erected a heteronomy, a pillar of reified truth to turn to and point at and say, look, that's reality, the facts don't lie. The point for Kallis is that, yes, the facts don't lie, but what we do with those facts is political. Delimiting a way of living is political and we should be engaging in a democratic discussion over how we want to live. If we want to live without trashing the global south and then sinking ourselves, then we have to create autonomy, rather than heteronomy. We have to ask: what needs should be met? We have to become conscious of how we may limit ourselves, so we can transform ourselves, rather than pointing to an external spook that will punish us if we look away.
tl;dr: gravity is a physical fact. For someone suiciding, gravity is not a limit. For someone wanting to land without injuring themselves from a height, gravity is a limit. We should apply the same way of thinking to 20th environmentalism. What do we, ultimately, want?
Malthus: Prophet of Capitalism
So, get this, Malthus was not an eco-pessimist splitting hairs about populations spinning out of control and devouring the Earth. Yes, he thought population growth was inevitable and that it would come up against a resource limit, but he believed meeting such limits drove technological developments. In fact, he believed that keeping a vast subset of people at this limit (dispossessed and starving) was a necessary motivation to drive labour. He believed that if the masses of poor were not starving, they would laze around and society would collapse.
In other words, Malthus was one of the early prophets of the free market.
Malthus's thinking goes like this: 1) It is the threat of scarcity that fosters industry 2) therefore, inequality is a necessary foundation for economic growth, 3) and economic growth is necessary to sustain population growth, 4) which is the nature of 'man.'
Malthus didn't want to cull population growth. He was Christian. He vehemently opposed birth control and the reproductive rights of women. For him, 'man's' right was to populate and dominate the Earth. Malthus wasn't an ecologist worried about sustainability—he was a reactionary theologian that saw redistribution as the greatest sin, for redistribution stops us toiling away, 24/7, for a pittance.
Theories of Scarcity: Malthus, Neoclassical Economics, and 20th Century Environmentalism
Giorgos Kallis traces the movement of such thought across three periods: 1) Malthus in the 19th century, 2) neoclassical economics across the 19th and 20th century, 3) and environmentalism in the 20th century. In all three cases, economic growth is never questioned as a social value.
For Malthus, our unlimited want is reproduction and our limited means is food production. By keeping the vast majority of people poor, we generate enough industry to overcome our limitations.
For neoclassical economists, our unlimited want is consumption and our limited means is time. We are finite beings, who cannot have everything, but this lack spurns us to keep consuming. It is, owo, simply an unfortunately part of human nature.
For 20th century environmentalists, what becomes limited is nature itself. Nature can only sustain so many people. There is, essentially, not enough for everyone. Through 20th century environmentalists, Malthus, who believed any natural limit could be overcome, is transformed into a prophet of eco-pessimism. Ironically, the solution for 20th century environmentalists was a Malthusian one: to develop greater technologies that could extract more from the Earth so as to meet population needs.
Kallis critiques all three frameworks for positing scarcity as the foundation of existence. Under a regime of scarcity, everyone takes as much as they can in fear of others taking more. We saw this with Covid and supermarkets. The tragedy of the commons is the most infamous example of this. Garrett Hardin, who popularised this idea, proposed that commons always become capitalist. He argued that if people were free to take what they want, certain individuals would begin hoarding and then selling these resources to others. This was natural. Tragic, but natural. Hardin, like Malthus, used logical arguments to get his points across. Empirical evidence of how commons operate, however, show that people do not start hoarding everything in sight. They simply take what they want and leave—the same way you take what water you need from the tap, then go back to whatever you're doing. Why? Because under a framework of abundance, the fear that there won't be enough to go around dissipates.
Theories of Abundance: Emma Goldman, and Rachel Carson
For Emma Goldman, the idea of human beings as unlimited in their desires is engendered by capitalism and militarism. Capitalism needs raw material, labourers, and markets. It lives and breathes through scarcity, by constantly positing a lack that must be filled. Capital is disconnected from social needs. It is growth for the sake of growth. This leads to all sorts of colonisations. 16th century slavery and the accumulation of bodies. 21st century social media and the accumulation of personal data. There is no end to this process. Despite the collective wealth that now exists in the world—a wealth that could feed everyone quite comfortably and grant us an abundance of leisure time—capitalism wants more.
Against capitalism (and, retroactively, 20th century environmentalism), Emma Goldman posits Mother Earth as limitless and abundant. Rachel Carson, similarly, posits nature as brimming with life. For Carson, we haven't run into a natural limit with farming—we're creating a limit through the use of pesticides. We're constricting Mother Earth of her abundance, all the wonderous, sprawling species who die in silence.
Kallis sees in both Goldman and Carson a reorientation from capitalist logics of scarcity towards a logic of abundance that stresses sharing and collaboration over accumulation and competition.
Autonomy: Democracy, and Self-Limitation
The last point worth bringing up is Kallis's issue with the term limit. For Kallis, a limit is like an affordance: it's an interfacing between an intention and an environment. A limit is not an objective out there. A limit is a navigation. If we keep living the way we're living, pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, nitrogen runoff into rivers, and microplastics into the ocean, then we will reach a limit where the biosphere can no longer sustain itself and it, along with us, will be radically transformed.
Why does this definition matter? Because if we don't think of limits as negotiable and socially-constructed, then we've merely erected a heteronomy, a pillar of reified truth to turn to and point at and say, look, that's reality, the facts don't lie. The point for Kallis is that, yes, the facts don't lie, but what we do with those facts is political. Delimiting a way of living is political and we should be engaging in a democratic discussion over how we want to live. If we want to live without trashing the global south and then sinking ourselves, then we have to create autonomy, rather than heteronomy. We have to ask: what needs should be met? We have to become conscious of how we may limit ourselves, so we can transform ourselves, rather than pointing to an external spook that will punish us if we look away.
tl;dr: gravity is a physical fact. For someone suiciding, gravity is not a limit. For someone wanting to land without injuring themselves from a height, gravity is a limit. We should apply the same way of thinking to 20th environmentalism. What do we, ultimately, want?
November 25, 2019
An excellent book. Very easy to read, with a nice mix of history, philosophy and political ecology.
The author claims that Malthus was indeed wrong in his theory, but not for the reasons we tend to believe. For the author, limits are not just "something out there" nature imposes to us but on the contrary, they are the choices we make. Why gravity would be a limit? it is only if you want to fly. So limits always refer to an anthropocentric point of view as they are a human construction. This is indeed an interesting angle to examine the issue of limits and can lead to a lot of self-reflection. Although as someone coming from natural science, I still tend to believe there is some kind of planetary limits, after reading the book I reconsidered the idea and now I am focusing more on how important it is for all of us, individually and as a species, to define our own limits instead of trying to test the natural limits.
The author discusses the idea of self and collective limitation in a society of direct democracy and draws some parallel with ancient Greece, the same way Castoriadis did. His research on these two chapters draws clearly from the ideas of the French-greek philosopher but focuses more on the idea of limits. At this point, I would expect to see more about education and culture, which are critical elements when we talk about autonomy; but even without these, the book is still great and definitely paves the way for more questions and further readings...In fact, I am now reading Castoriadis in an effort to further understand the idea of direct democracy and autonomy.
The author claims that Malthus was indeed wrong in his theory, but not for the reasons we tend to believe. For the author, limits are not just "something out there" nature imposes to us but on the contrary, they are the choices we make. Why gravity would be a limit? it is only if you want to fly. So limits always refer to an anthropocentric point of view as they are a human construction. This is indeed an interesting angle to examine the issue of limits and can lead to a lot of self-reflection. Although as someone coming from natural science, I still tend to believe there is some kind of planetary limits, after reading the book I reconsidered the idea and now I am focusing more on how important it is for all of us, individually and as a species, to define our own limits instead of trying to test the natural limits.
The author discusses the idea of self and collective limitation in a society of direct democracy and draws some parallel with ancient Greece, the same way Castoriadis did. His research on these two chapters draws clearly from the ideas of the French-greek philosopher but focuses more on the idea of limits. At this point, I would expect to see more about education and culture, which are critical elements when we talk about autonomy; but even without these, the book is still great and definitely paves the way for more questions and further readings...In fact, I am now reading Castoriadis in an effort to further understand the idea of direct democracy and autonomy.
January 27, 2021
Kallis makes some valid points. But he was not able to show the practical implications of these points, or dawdled quite a bit in making them. So even though this book is fairly short (139 pages), I couldn't quite get into it and wound up reading only about half of it. I skipped forward and back to see what his point was, and couldn't find it.
But first, what he got right. What? Malthus is wrong? We all thought that Malthus was the first person to talk about limits to economic growth. It sounds the author is going to make a pro-growth argument, but cheer up! Malthus, strictly speaking, doesn't advocate a "limits to growth" point of view, in the sense of some absolute limit on the economy. Malthus is actually pro-growth. He only says there is a limit on the rate of growth. The economy can grow indefinitely, just not at an exponential rate. It's the difference between an "arithmetic" progression (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and a "geometric" progression (1, 2, 4, 8, 16). In fact, as a percentage of existing size of the economy, the rate of growth will continuously decline. There will be some exceptions for improvements in technology and discovery of new resources; but technology can never be more than 100% efficient, and new resources are still finite.
But that's not the way that most people, including me, read Malthus. Most people read Malthus as saying "because there are limits, you can't always get what you want," and that there is an unstated corollary here: not only can economic growth not progress exponentially, at some point it can't progress at all. That's how Darwin read Malthus, who was a central influence on the theory of evolution. Even though Malthus didn't say "there are absolute upper limits on the economy," we generally consider Malthus to imply this. Consider Malthus duly chastised for not clarifying this. Can we move on?
I think that what Kallis wants to add to the discussion is that the real problem is our unlimited wants, not nature. True enough; with unlimited wants, we're bound to have a problem no matter how "big" nature is. On p. 45, he distinguishes between environmentalists in the 1970's who wanted to limit growth because it destroyed the environment, and those who wanted to limit growth because otherwise the economy would crash and burn. On page 50, he says, "it is not our nature but the system that wants us to want without limits."
These are all valid points, but to me it is a distinction without much practical impact. So are we against the growth economy because it distorts our human nature or because it destroys the earth? Well, either way, we're against it. If I was talking to a Buddhist audience, I'd emphasize the first problem. You'll never get to enlightenment if you buy into the growth economy! But if I was talking to a bunch of Republicans, I'd emphasize the second. Profits will be down if you destroy the planet!
There are other issues for which the same sort of distinction could apply. For example, the arguments for veganism. Some believe it's wrong to eat animals, but others believe it's bad for your health and for the environment. There are practical considerations versus moral considerations. But either way, we still should go vegan. Most vegans come to veganism through one of several paths --- nutrition, ecology, or ethics. But once they get there, they see the validity of the other paths. They broadly agree on both the health angle and the ethical angle to veganism. There are some exceptions, but if you talk to vegans this is what you'll typically hear.
Another issue in which this distinction is applied is the philosophical arguments about utilitarianism versus deontology. A utilitarian would say that murder is wrong because it's a bad idea and people get hurt. A deontologist would say that murder is just wrong, period. But either way we get to the same result.
Yes, it MIGHT make a difference, and you can come up with some convoluted cases where it would. But in practice it's hard to see what it is. Most philosophers (and others) agree that you should lie to a murderer who comes to your door and wants to kill the person hiding in your basement. Most environmentalists would be against damming the Grand Canyon to produce electricity.
So, bottom line: I see his point and I think I agree with it, but it's hard to get into. First of all, he seems to misinterpret Malthus through an over-literal reading. But second, he wants to take this distinction and draw practical implications. Show me these practical implications, I just don't see them. I'm a little busy right now trying to save the ecosystem. Can we just stop economic growth already?
But first, what he got right. What? Malthus is wrong? We all thought that Malthus was the first person to talk about limits to economic growth. It sounds the author is going to make a pro-growth argument, but cheer up! Malthus, strictly speaking, doesn't advocate a "limits to growth" point of view, in the sense of some absolute limit on the economy. Malthus is actually pro-growth. He only says there is a limit on the rate of growth. The economy can grow indefinitely, just not at an exponential rate. It's the difference between an "arithmetic" progression (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and a "geometric" progression (1, 2, 4, 8, 16). In fact, as a percentage of existing size of the economy, the rate of growth will continuously decline. There will be some exceptions for improvements in technology and discovery of new resources; but technology can never be more than 100% efficient, and new resources are still finite.
But that's not the way that most people, including me, read Malthus. Most people read Malthus as saying "because there are limits, you can't always get what you want," and that there is an unstated corollary here: not only can economic growth not progress exponentially, at some point it can't progress at all. That's how Darwin read Malthus, who was a central influence on the theory of evolution. Even though Malthus didn't say "there are absolute upper limits on the economy," we generally consider Malthus to imply this. Consider Malthus duly chastised for not clarifying this. Can we move on?
I think that what Kallis wants to add to the discussion is that the real problem is our unlimited wants, not nature. True enough; with unlimited wants, we're bound to have a problem no matter how "big" nature is. On p. 45, he distinguishes between environmentalists in the 1970's who wanted to limit growth because it destroyed the environment, and those who wanted to limit growth because otherwise the economy would crash and burn. On page 50, he says, "it is not our nature but the system that wants us to want without limits."
These are all valid points, but to me it is a distinction without much practical impact. So are we against the growth economy because it distorts our human nature or because it destroys the earth? Well, either way, we're against it. If I was talking to a Buddhist audience, I'd emphasize the first problem. You'll never get to enlightenment if you buy into the growth economy! But if I was talking to a bunch of Republicans, I'd emphasize the second. Profits will be down if you destroy the planet!
There are other issues for which the same sort of distinction could apply. For example, the arguments for veganism. Some believe it's wrong to eat animals, but others believe it's bad for your health and for the environment. There are practical considerations versus moral considerations. But either way, we still should go vegan. Most vegans come to veganism through one of several paths --- nutrition, ecology, or ethics. But once they get there, they see the validity of the other paths. They broadly agree on both the health angle and the ethical angle to veganism. There are some exceptions, but if you talk to vegans this is what you'll typically hear.
Another issue in which this distinction is applied is the philosophical arguments about utilitarianism versus deontology. A utilitarian would say that murder is wrong because it's a bad idea and people get hurt. A deontologist would say that murder is just wrong, period. But either way we get to the same result.
Yes, it MIGHT make a difference, and you can come up with some convoluted cases where it would. But in practice it's hard to see what it is. Most philosophers (and others) agree that you should lie to a murderer who comes to your door and wants to kill the person hiding in your basement. Most environmentalists would be against damming the Grand Canyon to produce electricity.
So, bottom line: I see his point and I think I agree with it, but it's hard to get into. First of all, he seems to misinterpret Malthus through an over-literal reading. But second, he wants to take this distinction and draw practical implications. Show me these practical implications, I just don't see them. I'm a little busy right now trying to save the ecosystem. Can we just stop economic growth already?
January 3, 2024
Socialists and environmentalists living in democracies around the world are faced with a fundamental dilemma: How can we gain political power if that requires convincing the masses of the necessity of self-limitation for saving the planet, in a society celebrating and structurally depending on growth and individual freedom without limits?
Here, Kallis’ ‘Limits’ offers an interesting, essay-esque exploration of the concept. His main point of reference is Cornelius Castoriadis’ differentiation between autonomy and heteronomy, and he seems to be inspired by anarchist thought in the broadest sense. The book starts with revisiting Malthus and debunking the apparently wrong assertion that he was in favour of limits and population control, and instead exposes him as the first Apostel of the possibility of unlimited growth in economic science.
While this was an interesting read and I enjoyed the critique of Neo-Malthusianism in modern environmentalism, I personally enjoyed other, messier parts of the book more. Kallis himself seems to be very indecisive about how a culture of limits and justice could look like today. As he explores the centrality of limits in Ancient Greek philosophy and the ‘polis’, he throws around a lot of loose thoughts and unfinished arguments.
At the end, I understand this essay as an attempt to dialectically synthesise the contradictory relationship between freedom and limits with the goal of preventing climate breakdown. This is still an open question and a timely debate, which makes Kallis’ book so relevant. I only wished he had connected his vision more systematically to other ideas floating around in this discourse, like Monbiot’s ‘private sufficiency, public luxury’ or recommoning.
4/5 and would recommend without taking every of Kallis’ thoughts at face value.
Here, Kallis’ ‘Limits’ offers an interesting, essay-esque exploration of the concept. His main point of reference is Cornelius Castoriadis’ differentiation between autonomy and heteronomy, and he seems to be inspired by anarchist thought in the broadest sense. The book starts with revisiting Malthus and debunking the apparently wrong assertion that he was in favour of limits and population control, and instead exposes him as the first Apostel of the possibility of unlimited growth in economic science.
While this was an interesting read and I enjoyed the critique of Neo-Malthusianism in modern environmentalism, I personally enjoyed other, messier parts of the book more. Kallis himself seems to be very indecisive about how a culture of limits and justice could look like today. As he explores the centrality of limits in Ancient Greek philosophy and the ‘polis’, he throws around a lot of loose thoughts and unfinished arguments.
At the end, I understand this essay as an attempt to dialectically synthesise the contradictory relationship between freedom and limits with the goal of preventing climate breakdown. This is still an open question and a timely debate, which makes Kallis’ book so relevant. I only wished he had connected his vision more systematically to other ideas floating around in this discourse, like Monbiot’s ‘private sufficiency, public luxury’ or recommoning.
4/5 and would recommend without taking every of Kallis’ thoughts at face value.
July 11, 2024
muy inspirador!! reflexiones que van más allá de la economía ecológica y versan sobre vivir una vida digna
March 23, 2025
Σε μια εποχή πού που οι άνθρωποι έχουν σαν μότο την υπέρβαση των ορίων τους ο συγγραφέας δηλώνει ότι πρέπει να επαναφεύρουμε την αρχαιοελληνική φιλοσοφία του μέτρου και των ορίων για να νιώσουμε ελεύθεροι. Καταδεικνύοντας τον λάθος συλλογισμό του Μάλθους και λοιπών οικονομολόγων περί περιορισμένου χώρου προτείνει ότι θα πρέπει να γίνει αλλαγή στην θεώρηση των πραγμάτων που μας περιβάλλον και να αποδώσουμε τα όρια στις προθέσεις μας και όχι στη φύση.
February 6, 2021
I enjoyed this book.
Where it excelled was its summaries of economic thought, how scarcity and growth became mutually reinforcing forces, how Malthussians and Malthus's mainstream critics were united in viewing unlimited desire and scarcity as the basic economic problem.
Another strength was its insistence that it is when we accept the world as abundant we can begin to ask questions around limits. although here I wish he had dived a bit deeper into the anthropological literature around gift economies, expenditure etc.
Oh and I really enjoyed the discussion around money as being an agent of limitlessness, which is a classic trope of political theory.
The last thing I really enjoyed was just how accessible the book is. I feel like I could give the book to my marine biologist family members and they would get it. Which is really an important accomplishment given how hard it is to talk about these ideas.
My two big critiques are:
1) Kallis really holds onto the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy as the key to understanding limits. I see why this is necessary. By distinguishing between the two you're able to show a sense of self-limitation that works alongside a certain concept of freedom. Limits in this picture aren't imposed on us by nature, but rather become a political choice, an expression of freedom. This is also why people distinguish between deliberately chosen degrowth and economic stagnation, which is a different thing.
However, it leaves us with the impression of an autonomous self governing subject at the heart of Kallis's project. It doesn't help that when Kallis does address issues of desire, culture, that would complicate this sense of an autonomous subject, he goes to ancient Greece, or worse yet talks about the death instinct, without really critically engage with it. This is a space where queer theory and feminist theory could bring so many insights. I would love to read something about reproductive futurism and how it ties to ideas around growth for example. In any case, there is a broader need to shift the discussion from subjectivity to subjectivation; why do people desire growth even though its bad for them and bad for the planet and what kind of politics could reorganize this desire? What kind of politics produces that kind of subject?
2) What is also regrettable is the lack of any mention of tactics. How do we organize around a politics of limitation? I get what an ethics of limits could look like, what it would mean to practice self-limitation, but I feel like this also needs to be a political struggle.
Anyhow, it is a short book addressed to a popular audience so perhaps I'm asking too much. Great read regardless!
Where it excelled was its summaries of economic thought, how scarcity and growth became mutually reinforcing forces, how Malthussians and Malthus's mainstream critics were united in viewing unlimited desire and scarcity as the basic economic problem.
Another strength was its insistence that it is when we accept the world as abundant we can begin to ask questions around limits. although here I wish he had dived a bit deeper into the anthropological literature around gift economies, expenditure etc.
Oh and I really enjoyed the discussion around money as being an agent of limitlessness, which is a classic trope of political theory.
The last thing I really enjoyed was just how accessible the book is. I feel like I could give the book to my marine biologist family members and they would get it. Which is really an important accomplishment given how hard it is to talk about these ideas.
My two big critiques are:
1) Kallis really holds onto the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy as the key to understanding limits. I see why this is necessary. By distinguishing between the two you're able to show a sense of self-limitation that works alongside a certain concept of freedom. Limits in this picture aren't imposed on us by nature, but rather become a political choice, an expression of freedom. This is also why people distinguish between deliberately chosen degrowth and economic stagnation, which is a different thing.
However, it leaves us with the impression of an autonomous self governing subject at the heart of Kallis's project. It doesn't help that when Kallis does address issues of desire, culture, that would complicate this sense of an autonomous subject, he goes to ancient Greece, or worse yet talks about the death instinct, without really critically engage with it. This is a space where queer theory and feminist theory could bring so many insights. I would love to read something about reproductive futurism and how it ties to ideas around growth for example. In any case, there is a broader need to shift the discussion from subjectivity to subjectivation; why do people desire growth even though its bad for them and bad for the planet and what kind of politics could reorganize this desire? What kind of politics produces that kind of subject?
2) What is also regrettable is the lack of any mention of tactics. How do we organize around a politics of limitation? I get what an ethics of limits could look like, what it would mean to practice self-limitation, but I feel like this also needs to be a political struggle.
Anyhow, it is a short book addressed to a popular audience so perhaps I'm asking too much. Great read regardless!
March 3, 2021
3.5*
A quick read which for it's thinking deserves more *s but which loses out as I found the argument put forward meandered.
Kallis writes clearly and well, his reinterpretation of Malthus is interesting and I agree with a lot of what he says about shifting to self imposed limits for the good of all.
I don't think we will be able to move away from the concept of naturally imposed limits so swiftly however. Self imposed ones are fine, but they imply a degree of cohesion, consensus and sharing which humanity as a whole hasn't reached yet. And we don't have much time to get there, before the planet burns.
A quick read which for it's thinking deserves more *s but which loses out as I found the argument put forward meandered.
Kallis writes clearly and well, his reinterpretation of Malthus is interesting and I agree with a lot of what he says about shifting to self imposed limits for the good of all.
I don't think we will be able to move away from the concept of naturally imposed limits so swiftly however. Self imposed ones are fine, but they imply a degree of cohesion, consensus and sharing which humanity as a whole hasn't reached yet. And we don't have much time to get there, before the planet burns.
November 30, 2019
Smart and illuminating little book on limits in a pretty wide sense of the word. It sets the record straight on what Malthus actually wrote, and shows how his ideas very much permeate our thinking on the subject to this day, particularily through neo-classical economics and certain strains of environmentalism. Instead of invoking the specter of harsh external limits and scarcity, Kallis argues for self-imposed limits as a manifestation of autonomy.
August 9, 2020
A very interesting and fresh approach toward Malthus' famous essay. This one gave me a lot of food for thought, especially considering Kallis' view that limits are a matter of choice and thus reflect prevailing positions of power. The perspective of this concise work of Kallis is quite eurocentrist and thus there remains plenty of room for further discussion.
October 12, 2020
Not a pro-growth book, Limits is a concise and thought-provoking re-reading of Malthus that argues planetary limits are not the problem; our limitless desires are. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2020...
Read
January 17, 2021A quick and engaging read, well-argued and thought-provoking.
January 10, 2022
"The limit resides in the subject and the intention, not in nature, which is indifferent to our intentions. And it is our intentions that should be limited" (p.47).
September 24, 2019
I came into this with a chip on my shoulder assuming it was some kind of dumb degrowth/socialist sort of thing. And it didn't help that very early on Kallis identifies himself as an ecological economist in contrast to an orthodox economist, and then proceeds to make an astonishingly dumb claim about the premises of his economic model. I ended up skimming the rest of the book, and didn't find it particularly enlightening in terms of underlying content. But I was quite surprised to find that the book is actually fairly endearing. It's short and light on theory or empirics, and spends most of its page space on a wide-ranging and often personal attempt to reframe and philosophize the concept of limits. It feels humbled, curious, open-minded, and provocative, despite the unfortunate positions and assumptions it comes attached to, though it can also feel long-winded repetitive despite its relatively short length.
Kallis makes one point I really like: that living within limits is a positive choice defined by social values, not a negative one bounded by environmental tipping points. This isn't just the trite pedantry that environmental degradation isn't "killing the planet," that life will flourish if we drive ourselves extinct. Instead, it's a question of what we want the world to be like, how we want to imagine ourselves in it. It meshes very well with deep ecological ethics and concepts like environmental citizenship and the Leopoldian land ethic. It's nice and in some ways more right than the alternative, and could be a useful perspective shift in many discussions. I'm just not sure it brings all that much light to the particular question Kallis is actually interested in.
Kallis spends much of the book defending this conceptual distinction between scarcity and limits. The first chapter gives a quite interesting exploration of Malthus' values and fears and how they often directly contradict the narrative attributed to him. The conclusion is that Malthus wanted a world in which population growth kept us as a species permanently on the edge of starvation. The suffering inherent in this situation, which was divinely ordained, would act as a constant goad to grow the economy and improve ourselves. In other words, there are no limits, but growth should never overcome scarcity or eliminate inequality. The secular eco-socialist valueset turns both values on their heads: embrace limits and degrowth, while eliminating scarcity and inequality. It's a big word game, and Kallis doesn't have much interest in grounding it theoretically or empirically.
Most importantly, the whole scheme lies in the idea that economists invented the notion of scarcity in order to justify inequality. It's one of the main core assumptions that makes Marxist economics and ecological economics distinct from neoclassical economics, so distinct from their frameworks that it requires a blind conceptual leap to get into or out of it. Now that I'm out of it, it just boggles my mind that anyone can say it with a straight face. The dumb thing at the very beginning of the book that turned me off immediately was the astonishing claim that the concept of "opportunity cost" only exists in a world with hypothetically unlimited desires. The point isn't elaborated and I can't even imagine what the logic for it is. Even in the most utopian of fully automated luxury gay space communism scenarios, pursuing some luxuries means forgoing others.
Part of the problem is that Kallis has no notion of where the frames of reference and value sets he rightly points out are required to evaluate concepts like scarcity and limits come from. Ecology makes plenty of cursory appearances throughout, but evolution never comes up a single time that I noticed. Without that grounding framework, and with an understandable but unfortunate hesitance to discuss anything close to specifics of appropriate levels of consumption, the nature of what Kallis is advocating is impossible to pin down. Sometimes it feels like he's browbeating us to learn to like austerity. Other times he implies that embracing a philosophy of limits will somehow make most of us more prosperous in material terms. In general, his invocations of indigenous and historical cultures as models suggest that he views culture as somehow both uniquely culpable and infinitely plastic, in all the familiar socialist ways. If we were more like the Xhosa, we would never have gotten into this mess, and if we chose to be more like them now, we could easily get out of it. It's ahistorical nonsense.
Kallis makes one point I really like: that living within limits is a positive choice defined by social values, not a negative one bounded by environmental tipping points. This isn't just the trite pedantry that environmental degradation isn't "killing the planet," that life will flourish if we drive ourselves extinct. Instead, it's a question of what we want the world to be like, how we want to imagine ourselves in it. It meshes very well with deep ecological ethics and concepts like environmental citizenship and the Leopoldian land ethic. It's nice and in some ways more right than the alternative, and could be a useful perspective shift in many discussions. I'm just not sure it brings all that much light to the particular question Kallis is actually interested in.
Kallis spends much of the book defending this conceptual distinction between scarcity and limits. The first chapter gives a quite interesting exploration of Malthus' values and fears and how they often directly contradict the narrative attributed to him. The conclusion is that Malthus wanted a world in which population growth kept us as a species permanently on the edge of starvation. The suffering inherent in this situation, which was divinely ordained, would act as a constant goad to grow the economy and improve ourselves. In other words, there are no limits, but growth should never overcome scarcity or eliminate inequality. The secular eco-socialist valueset turns both values on their heads: embrace limits and degrowth, while eliminating scarcity and inequality. It's a big word game, and Kallis doesn't have much interest in grounding it theoretically or empirically.
Most importantly, the whole scheme lies in the idea that economists invented the notion of scarcity in order to justify inequality. It's one of the main core assumptions that makes Marxist economics and ecological economics distinct from neoclassical economics, so distinct from their frameworks that it requires a blind conceptual leap to get into or out of it. Now that I'm out of it, it just boggles my mind that anyone can say it with a straight face. The dumb thing at the very beginning of the book that turned me off immediately was the astonishing claim that the concept of "opportunity cost" only exists in a world with hypothetically unlimited desires. The point isn't elaborated and I can't even imagine what the logic for it is. Even in the most utopian of fully automated luxury gay space communism scenarios, pursuing some luxuries means forgoing others.
Part of the problem is that Kallis has no notion of where the frames of reference and value sets he rightly points out are required to evaluate concepts like scarcity and limits come from. Ecology makes plenty of cursory appearances throughout, but evolution never comes up a single time that I noticed. Without that grounding framework, and with an understandable but unfortunate hesitance to discuss anything close to specifics of appropriate levels of consumption, the nature of what Kallis is advocating is impossible to pin down. Sometimes it feels like he's browbeating us to learn to like austerity. Other times he implies that embracing a philosophy of limits will somehow make most of us more prosperous in material terms. In general, his invocations of indigenous and historical cultures as models suggest that he views culture as somehow both uniquely culpable and infinitely plastic, in all the familiar socialist ways. If we were more like the Xhosa, we would never have gotten into this mess, and if we chose to be more like them now, we could easily get out of it. It's ahistorical nonsense.
November 21, 2019
Um dos conceitos básicos em Ecologia é o dos limites: qualquer população de seres vivos tem o potencial de crescer exponencialmente. Num modelo simples há uma altura que que começa a não haver recursos suficientes (alimento, espaço) para suportar este crescimento populacional. Num cenário otimista a taxa de reprodução diminui e a taxa de mortalidade aumenta, fazendo com que a população estabilize naquilo que se designa por “capacidade de sustento”. No cenário pessimista a taxa de crescimento mantém-se, a população excede a capacidade de sustento, os recursos esgotam-se ou degradam-se e os efetivos colapsam, para eventualmente retomar o ciclo mais tarde. No primeiro cenário colocam-se espécies como as baleias ou os elefantes (que se autolimitam), no segundo ratos, moscas ou baratas (que são limitadas catastroficamente pelos fatores externos).
Para alguém com um conhecimento básico de Ecologia, portanto, a existência de limites é um dado de partida, assim como o são os mecanismos que resultam desses mesmos limites. Deste ponto de vista, a insistência dos economistas num crescimento exponencial contínuo só pode ser entendida como irrealista, e o apoio político que ela recebe como irracional. Neste contexto as ideias de Thomas Malthus são muitas vezes citadas. Na interpretação vulgar existem limites maltusianos porque a população humana cresce muito mais depressa do que a produção de alimentos. O que acontece a seguir é menos claro, mas o adjetivo “malthusiano” continua a aplicar-se à perspetiva (e realidade) de guerras e fomes alegadamente causadas pelo excesso populacional.
É aqui que entra o último livro de Giorgos Kallis. O autor começa por clarificar que Malthus não fala de limites. A sua teoria da diferença entre os ritmos de crescimento da população humana e da capacidade de produção de alimento foi utilizada não só para justificar a existência da pobreza (os recursos não chegam para todos) mas também para justificar a eliminação da assistência aos pobres (o impulso de sair da pobreza cria o espírito empreendedor necessário para o progresso). De facto, Malthus advoga o crescimento contínuo quer da população quer da tecnologia.
GK parte desta incompreensão generalizada dos conceitos de Malthus para chamar a atenção do movimento ambiental para o problema de basear uma linha de ação política em limites externos, como os 2ºC do Acordo de Paris. O argumento não é intuitivo, mas o esforço de o compreender compensa, pela nova perspetiva que proporciona e pelas orientações políticas que dela emanam.
O argumento de GK é que os limites não são impostos pela natureza, são definidos por nós. Um limite implica um objetivo, um propósito. Queremos limitar o aquecimento global a 1,5ºC porque a ciência nos diz que acima disso o clima mudará de tal forma que o tipo de civilização que temos agora poderá deixar de ser possível. Mas não vai acontecer nada de particular no dia em que o planeta ultrapassar esse limite. Se o ultrapassarmos (quando o ultrapassarmos) teremos um clima diferente e uma civilização diferente porque foi essa a escolha que, coletivamente, fizémos ou deixámos que fizessem por nós.
Não há limites, a não ser os que nós colocamos. E é esse o segundo argumento de GK- que os ambientalistas e as forças políticas progressistas deviam intervir defendendo limites internos positivos em substituição das atuais bandeiras negativas, que os colocam como profetas da desgraça. GK constrói um argumento poderosíssimo em torno da auto-limitação, concebida em função dos objetivos que queremos atingir. A mensagem passa assim a ser positiva: isto é o que queremos e para isso estas são as medidas que precisamos de ser implementadas e estes os limites (agora sim!) que não podem ser excedidos.
Esta é uma chamada de atenção muito importante: chega de dissecar o que está mal, chega de gastar energias a criticar o crescimento ou o capitalismo. É difícil entusiasmar-se com o decrescimento, e a mobilização contra o capitalismo é impossível sem uma ideia clara de como o queremos substituir. Todas as forças progressistas deviam analisar esta mensagem e procurar nela os pontos de união que lhes conferirão o poder de mudar o mundo.
Para alguém com um conhecimento básico de Ecologia, portanto, a existência de limites é um dado de partida, assim como o são os mecanismos que resultam desses mesmos limites. Deste ponto de vista, a insistência dos economistas num crescimento exponencial contínuo só pode ser entendida como irrealista, e o apoio político que ela recebe como irracional. Neste contexto as ideias de Thomas Malthus são muitas vezes citadas. Na interpretação vulgar existem limites maltusianos porque a população humana cresce muito mais depressa do que a produção de alimentos. O que acontece a seguir é menos claro, mas o adjetivo “malthusiano” continua a aplicar-se à perspetiva (e realidade) de guerras e fomes alegadamente causadas pelo excesso populacional.
É aqui que entra o último livro de Giorgos Kallis. O autor começa por clarificar que Malthus não fala de limites. A sua teoria da diferença entre os ritmos de crescimento da população humana e da capacidade de produção de alimento foi utilizada não só para justificar a existência da pobreza (os recursos não chegam para todos) mas também para justificar a eliminação da assistência aos pobres (o impulso de sair da pobreza cria o espírito empreendedor necessário para o progresso). De facto, Malthus advoga o crescimento contínuo quer da população quer da tecnologia.
GK parte desta incompreensão generalizada dos conceitos de Malthus para chamar a atenção do movimento ambiental para o problema de basear uma linha de ação política em limites externos, como os 2ºC do Acordo de Paris. O argumento não é intuitivo, mas o esforço de o compreender compensa, pela nova perspetiva que proporciona e pelas orientações políticas que dela emanam.
O argumento de GK é que os limites não são impostos pela natureza, são definidos por nós. Um limite implica um objetivo, um propósito. Queremos limitar o aquecimento global a 1,5ºC porque a ciência nos diz que acima disso o clima mudará de tal forma que o tipo de civilização que temos agora poderá deixar de ser possível. Mas não vai acontecer nada de particular no dia em que o planeta ultrapassar esse limite. Se o ultrapassarmos (quando o ultrapassarmos) teremos um clima diferente e uma civilização diferente porque foi essa a escolha que, coletivamente, fizémos ou deixámos que fizessem por nós.
Não há limites, a não ser os que nós colocamos. E é esse o segundo argumento de GK- que os ambientalistas e as forças políticas progressistas deviam intervir defendendo limites internos positivos em substituição das atuais bandeiras negativas, que os colocam como profetas da desgraça. GK constrói um argumento poderosíssimo em torno da auto-limitação, concebida em função dos objetivos que queremos atingir. A mensagem passa assim a ser positiva: isto é o que queremos e para isso estas são as medidas que precisamos de ser implementadas e estes os limites (agora sim!) que não podem ser excedidos.
Esta é uma chamada de atenção muito importante: chega de dissecar o que está mal, chega de gastar energias a criticar o crescimento ou o capitalismo. É difícil entusiasmar-se com o decrescimento, e a mobilização contra o capitalismo é impossível sem uma ideia clara de como o queremos substituir. Todas as forças progressistas deviam analisar esta mensagem e procurar nela os pontos de união que lhes conferirão o poder de mudar o mundo.
October 19, 2019
Concentrates on Malthus and his pamphlet about births increase unequal to resources available.
Too many births, too little food eventually.
Kallis tells us that Matthus has been shown wrong, along with increase in population we have a commensurate increase in food produced. The distribution of the increased food, does not reach the poor.
. . . easier to have children than to provide for them. p 13
. . . the poor -- by Malthus's definition, those who are in excess and cannot be fed. p. 17
In simple words, everything we do has a cost: the cost of not doing something else instead. p 37 !!!!!
Status, signaled by consumption, replaced the fixed social positions of class. p. 38
It is not our nature but the system that wants us to want without limits. p. 50
Nature becomes abundant when we enjoy what it has to offer, limiting our wants. p. 52
[rachel] Carson wanted us to place a limit on despoiling a nature full of life. * * * limiting a damaging kind of production was the path to a better future full of bird songs. p. 54
The case for self-limitation rests on the negative consequences, or the risks of not limiting ourselves; and on the freedom of setting limits to our own powers and intentions, limits without which freedom loses its meaning. p. 56
We should live simply so that others can simply live, as Gandhi allegedly said. p. 58
In Aristophanes's comedy Wealth (c. 388 BCE), one character is amazed that whereas one can have enough of sex, bread, music, or honor, one never feels that way about money. p. 79
. . . the Greeks were able to accept that it is we who make meaning in our lives. We do not have to search for it in the gods or the afterlife. * * * choosing the conditions of their own death. * * * . . . a culture of limits must be one that accepts death, not one, like ours, that tries to hide it or push it away. p. 89 !!!!!
Our ultimate fear, and limit, is death, which we have lost the capacity to accept or to deal with. * * *
. . . we still fantasize about immortality, as our obsession with health and the "occultation of death" reveal. p. 90 !!!!!
This freedom to act within the limits marked by death is different from our modern idea of freedom as the right to mobilize all forces possible to subdue nature and become immortal, which is to say unhuman. p. 91
[emma goldman] the working class must master those wants that fuel the system of exploitation, not insist that they should be satisfied. p. 103
. . . there is a conflict between political borders and borderless capitalism. . . . p. 109
It is when there are no limits that we have to limit ourselves. p. 120
Too many births, too little food eventually.
Kallis tells us that Matthus has been shown wrong, along with increase in population we have a commensurate increase in food produced. The distribution of the increased food, does not reach the poor.
. . . easier to have children than to provide for them. p 13
. . . the poor -- by Malthus's definition, those who are in excess and cannot be fed. p. 17
In simple words, everything we do has a cost: the cost of not doing something else instead. p 37 !!!!!
Status, signaled by consumption, replaced the fixed social positions of class. p. 38
It is not our nature but the system that wants us to want without limits. p. 50
Nature becomes abundant when we enjoy what it has to offer, limiting our wants. p. 52
[rachel] Carson wanted us to place a limit on despoiling a nature full of life. * * * limiting a damaging kind of production was the path to a better future full of bird songs. p. 54
The case for self-limitation rests on the negative consequences, or the risks of not limiting ourselves; and on the freedom of setting limits to our own powers and intentions, limits without which freedom loses its meaning. p. 56
We should live simply so that others can simply live, as Gandhi allegedly said. p. 58
In Aristophanes's comedy Wealth (c. 388 BCE), one character is amazed that whereas one can have enough of sex, bread, music, or honor, one never feels that way about money. p. 79
. . . the Greeks were able to accept that it is we who make meaning in our lives. We do not have to search for it in the gods or the afterlife. * * * choosing the conditions of their own death. * * * . . . a culture of limits must be one that accepts death, not one, like ours, that tries to hide it or push it away. p. 89 !!!!!
Our ultimate fear, and limit, is death, which we have lost the capacity to accept or to deal with. * * *
. . . we still fantasize about immortality, as our obsession with health and the "occultation of death" reveal. p. 90 !!!!!
This freedom to act within the limits marked by death is different from our modern idea of freedom as the right to mobilize all forces possible to subdue nature and become immortal, which is to say unhuman. p. 91
[emma goldman] the working class must master those wants that fuel the system of exploitation, not insist that they should be satisfied. p. 103
. . . there is a conflict between political borders and borderless capitalism. . . . p. 109
It is when there are no limits that we have to limit ourselves. p. 120
October 15, 2022
No lhe pogut acabar però crec que intenta donar-li la volta al concepte de límits d'una manera que no serveix per a res, realment. Així resumit crec que vol dir que no hem de considerar els límits del planeta en sí, sinó limitar les nostres intencions. Ok.
"Una civilització madura i autònoma és conscient que la natura no és una mare estricta que imposa límits i ens diu el que hem de fer. Però això no vol dir que puguem fer tot el que ens vingui de gust." Pag85
Jo diria que fins i tot la persona més pacient es pot posar estricta quan els seus fills estan insuportables i es posen a cremar la cuina.
"En canvi, jo defenso que no ens hauriem de limitar nosaltres mateixos només perquè hi ha límits, sinó perquè es el que volem fer. De fet, si el creixement no tingués límits, disposariem d'una raó més per limitar-lo, perquè el creixement illimitat és catastròfic" (?) Pag88
En general, crec que les intencions les has de limitar justament perquè hi ha límits i a més són difícils de calcular. Em sap greu ser "una aixafaguitarres".
Tampoc m'interessa que pensava Malthus realment, no crec que ningú del món de la sostenibilitat hagi llegit realment la seva obra i en sigui seguidor.
"Una civilització madura i autònoma és conscient que la natura no és una mare estricta que imposa límits i ens diu el que hem de fer. Però això no vol dir que puguem fer tot el que ens vingui de gust." Pag85
Jo diria que fins i tot la persona més pacient es pot posar estricta quan els seus fills estan insuportables i es posen a cremar la cuina.
"En canvi, jo defenso que no ens hauriem de limitar nosaltres mateixos només perquè hi ha límits, sinó perquè es el que volem fer. De fet, si el creixement no tingués límits, disposariem d'una raó més per limitar-lo, perquè el creixement illimitat és catastròfic" (?) Pag88
En general, crec que les intencions les has de limitar justament perquè hi ha límits i a més són difícils de calcular. Em sap greu ser "una aixafaguitarres".
Tampoc m'interessa que pensava Malthus realment, no crec que ningú del món de la sostenibilitat hagi llegit realment la seva obra i en sigui seguidor.
May 13, 2025
Ένα εξαιρετικό βιβλίο που έβαλε σε τάξη σκέψεις και αμφιβολίες που είχα για τον τρόπο που σκέφτομαι τα πράγματα περί της εξέλιξης του κόσμου (και κυρίως του σύγχρονου). Αλλά πέρα από τη δική μου προσωπική επιβεβαίωση και ανακούφιση, η Ελευθερία των Ορίων είναι ένας εξαιρετικά σύγχρονος τρόπος αντιμετώπισης μιας κοινωνίας που προσδοκά συνεχώς το περισσότερο, ανεξάρτητα αν αυτό ορίζεται οικονομικά ή με κάποιο άλλο τρόπο.
Περιγράφει ένα διαφορετικό τρόπο αντιμετώπισης της ζωής μας μέσα από τα μάτια των αρχαίων Ελλήνων, αλλά και σύγχρονων φιλοσόφων. Μέσω της αποδόμησης θεωριών που θεωρούνται αυτονόητες και δεδομένες, μας οδηγεί μεθοδικά στην αμφισβήτησή τους και στη σπορά των πρώτων καρπών "εναλλακτικής προσέγγισης" τόσο του παγκόσμιου οικονομικού γίγνεσθαι, όσο και της ίδιας μας της καθημερινότητας.
Προτείνεται ανεπιφύλακτα σε όποιους έχουν μικρές ανησυχίες για το παγκόσμιο σύστημα. Αλλά και σε όσους δεν έχουν, ίσως είναι μια ευκαιρία μιας πολύ ενδιαφέρουσας διαφορετικής ματιάς.
Εγώ πάντως θα το ξαναδιαβάσω!
Περιγράφει ένα διαφορετικό τρόπο αντιμετώπισης της ζωής μας μέσα από τα μάτια των αρχαίων Ελλήνων, αλλά και σύγχρονων φιλοσόφων. Μέσω της αποδόμησης θεωριών που θεωρούνται αυτονόητες και δεδομένες, μας οδηγεί μεθοδικά στην αμφισβήτησή τους και στη σπορά των πρώτων καρπών "εναλλακτικής προσέγγισης" τόσο του παγκόσμιου οικονομικού γίγνεσθαι, όσο και της ίδιας μας της καθημερινότητας.
Προτείνεται ανεπιφύλακτα σε όποιους έχουν μικρές ανησυχίες για το παγκόσμιο σύστημα. Αλλά και σε όσους δεν έχουν, ίσως είναι μια ευκαιρία μιας πολύ ενδιαφέρουσας διαφορετικής ματιάς.
Εγώ πάντως θα το ξαναδιαβάσω!
October 31, 2023
Límits de Kallis és un assaig lleuger sobre els límits i la falta de límits. Kallis fa, en primer lloc, una inversió de la figura malthusians. Malthus no predeia els límits de la terra, sinó el desig il•limitat de l'home: el pensament de Malthus és el de l'economia, la gestió de l'escassetat, el discurs de la pobresa i la riquesa, la desigualtat insuperable. Però no sempre ha estat així, i l'autolimitació ha estat part de societats com la grega -aurea mediocritas, hybris, les tragèdies gregues- i molts d'indígenes, aconseguint un equilibri amb el món, l'hózhó dels dineh, i no tant amb la natura -que reproduiria una oposició ficticia. El planeta mateix no té límits: el podem contaminar tant com vulguem. Qui s'ha d'imposar límits és, al contrari, la humanitat. Quin món volem és la pregunta darrera de la necessitat dels límits.
November 26, 2020
tackles both issues of capitalism: first being, as you'd expect, a criticism of the core principle of capitalism whereby a society seeking unlimited wants in a limited world is an issue (nothing new); but secondly proposes the notion that an individual seeking unlimited wants isn't their best interest, a notion I've only ever really heard before with regards to seeking money. This was an interesting idea, drawing upon easy examples such as as a child venturing too far away from home is both unwanted and terrifying.
It is worth highlighting that whilst tackling capitalism, I believe this isn't explicitly mentioned until towards the end (thankfully).
Conjured up from plenty of philosophy, not of interest for myself personally I'm afraid.
It is worth highlighting that whilst tackling capitalism, I believe this isn't explicitly mentioned until towards the end (thankfully).
Conjured up from plenty of philosophy, not of interest for myself personally I'm afraid.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 6, 2024
Culture och Limits delen landade riktigt väl. Den kändes sprakande och fascinerande. G Kallis förslag om att inspireras av antikens rädsla för hybris och kultur av att framhålla måttlighet och självbehärskning som något storslaget, köper jag. Han framhäver vikten av ett socialt kontext där begränsning ses som ett positivt aktivt ställningstagande för att kunna genomdriva långsiktiga nödvändiga förändringar, för samhälle och individ. Han understryker vikten av att medborgarna tror på de inskränkningar som demokratin kommit överens om. Med ett lätt sinne verkar han beskriva hur vi bäst ska gå till väga för att tackla de utmaningar vi ställs inför.
Den behandlar frågan om varför vi finns till och vad livet kan tänkas gå ut på.
Boken har gjort mig upprymd.
Den behandlar frågan om varför vi finns till och vad livet kan tänkas gå ut på.
Boken har gjort mig upprymd.
Read
May 20, 2025A concise book, focused less on degrowth (though Kallis clearly supports it) and more on limits as self-derived restraint on human desire. I think his point, that "limits" are relative to our wants, not purely natural, is right.
July 15, 2025
a quick and well recommended book rediscovering the freedom in limits
Important read for people interested in climate change and how to deal with it - with a surprising twist on limits
Important read for people interested in climate change and how to deal with it - with a surprising twist on limits
October 14, 2019
Highly recommended, short read.
September 29, 2020
Mais um da série "livros que organizam coisas que você já pensava". Muito bom pra pensar sobre auto-controle, social e individual, sem usar linguagem moralista ou religiosa
June 19, 2023
The real "Malthusian trap" is the one we currently live in.
May 8, 2024
Selvbegræsning er vejen til en ubegrænset verden
June 26, 2025
This guy is wise. It took forever to get to the why environmentalists should care part, but once it got there I was like 🤯
March 18, 2026
fa pensar, estic força d'acord amb l'autor
March 20, 2024
Una visió interessant i desafiant - val la pena llegir-lo i veure que, tal com explica el llibre, amb l’autolimitació i el compartir, podríem tenir un món molt abundant.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews