No I was not aware of this artist but I am fascinated with his art. I am going to have to listen to more from his website https://www.dariorobleto.com/media/
I love the call to “re-enchant simplicity” and build a culture where “enough” is sanity, not scarcity. As an artist and citizen, I feel charged up to help imagine and model this shift—through my work, my conversations, and the small choices of everyday life.
That phrase, “enough as sanity,” feels like one of the keystones in rethinking what we mean by prosperity. When artists and citizens like you carry it into your work, conversations, and daily choices, it starts to seed the culture with new possibilities.
The more of us who live that story, the more visible and normal it becomes—and the easier it will be for others to imagine joining in. It becomes an assumption. Thank you for taking it on in your own sphere. That’s exactly how big cultural shifts begin.
Cecil, how do you propose we reduce the population from 8+ billion down to the 2-3 billion you're fantasizing about? Do we mass produce those death pods from Canada so people can just end their lives when they're not happy any more? Or does the government decide who should die i.e. the undesireables, ugly, fat, homeless, specific races, etc????? This is some fantasy. Glad it's only that.
Thanks for reading and for raising the concern Annette.
I’m not talking about anything violent, coercive, or government-imposed, and I’m certainly not advocating harm toward anyone. The whole point of my article was to highlight the possibility of a peaceful, voluntary, centuries-long transition through education, cultural change, and the freedom for people everywhere to choose smaller families if they wish.
Population size changes naturally when people - especially women - have access to education, healthcare, and economic security. We’ve already seen it in countries where fertility rates have dropped without force, simply because people have the freedom to decide.
The “2–3 billion” figure is not a call for some sudden culling, it’s a thought experiment based on what the Earth might sustain if everyone enjoyed a decent, resource-intensive standard of living. If we walk intentionally toward that balance over generations, no “death pods” or authoritarian measures are necessary—just collective awareness and voluntary action for the sake of long-term sustainability.
I believe artists, educators, and citizens can help keep this conversation grounded in empathy, vision, and the greater good, rather than fear or divisiveness.
Thanks Cecil for your explanation. My knee-jerk response was just seeing the reduction of that number to a more livable one and I just couldn't see (or use my imagination) as to how that reduction could happen. Still, it's a utopian vision, one that might only happen if another flood wiped out most of what is and the humans started over again. Would make a great film if we could picture that new reality you speak of.
Well, there is always the natural disaster scenario and that can always happen with a super volcano going off that causes a 10-20 year famine or any number of other things. But humans at this point, with some fore planning as a species, could mitigate many of those scenarios. But we shouldn't wait for nature to wipe us out, we should plan to try to live on the planet sustainably for the next million years. Eternity is a long time.
We start creating that world through imagination. That's the creative community's job.
Sure; it could be a fun exercise for artists and as an assignment for schoolkids. We won't be around to experience such a world but turning imagination into such a fun exercise can release such creativity. It doesn't have to be an exercise in futility just because we won't be around to witness it. Me.....I'll just stick to the present and see what I can do in my own little corner of the planet to try and make it a better place.
Believe it or not, I am actually a loner. I need lots of time to myself, so having children that would require a lot of attention, was not in the cards for me. I loved teaching kids, but I could go home at night and have my alone time. It is not hard for me to be social, but it has to be on my terms, meaning having a choice. My husband, since the pandemic, has been able to work from home, but he goes into work 3 days a week just so I can have my quiet, uninterrupted time. I have been called "selfish" and "not doing God's will", and many childless women have experienced the same. My answer is always, "Should I have kids when I don't want to?" Some people actually say yes. Well, I choose to spend my time differently, to create in other ways, and contribute to society on my own terms. Selfish? Maybe.
What you’ve described is exactly the kind of self-awareness and personal choice that I believe should be at the heart of any conversation about population. You know yourself, your limits, and how you want to contribute to the world—and that’s a far better foundation for life decisions than social pressure or guilt.
It’s striking how quickly people label someone “selfish” for not having children, yet rarely apply the same word to those who have kids without the desire or capacity to truly raise them. Your point about contributing in other ways—teaching, creating, shaping community—underscores that there are many ways to fulfill a meaningful role in society.
If more people had the freedom and social support to make the choice you’ve made, I think we’d see healthier families, more balanced communities, and, over time, a natural and peaceful shift in our population trajectory.
Thanks, Cecil. What people don’t understand is that these are antiquated beliefs based on 1. thousands of years ago, 2. Middle Eastern Traditions, 3. a time where there were no medical options. Even as recent as the migration from the east coast to the west coast, my great, great grandparents had 14 children and lost 7 of them on their migration to the west coast. It was at a time when perils to the survival of families was a huge consideration, or in general for that matter, and is largely passed on through churches and other religion based traditions calling it God’s edicts. It’s not that day anymore, and I don’t feel any less of a woman for not having children because it was my choice, not something to be pitied.
It used to be that those now antiquated ideas made sense. but it is time to rethink those traditions and attitudes that are, at this point, dangerous to our global future. Over abundance also leads to failure not just scarcity. Women especially feel this pressure to 'serve the species' through reproduction in a way that men don't I think. In that case, to preserve the species and help the children to have a good future, keeping birthrates low to preserve global resources is the motherly thing to do if you ask me.
A mass vasectomy movement would be a good start😍
Loving your spirit. Just a ripple in our big human world. But a very loving one! Need more like you Cecil :-)
Not to add more fuel to the fire but watched this the other night
Should be required for all our kids... https://youtu.be/OVfZw_eqJW8?si=NoBA9JCH9tvMeVRc
Speaking of the long view... maybe you know him... just heard him interviewed by Sasha Sagan
https://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibitions/dario-robleto-signal
was this the interview? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dario-robleto-the-special/id1664854714?i=1000614159136
hey there Cecil... yes. Sasha Sagan podcast.
Very passionate and provocative... Loving.
OK I think I found the one you are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j06wwXxK3qE
No I was not aware of this artist but I am fascinated with his art. I am going to have to listen to more from his website https://www.dariorobleto.com/media/
Didn't know about this one. I'll check it out too. Marci beaucoup!
watch the actual rate of population increase here:
https://www.worldometers.info/watch/world-population/
I love the call to “re-enchant simplicity” and build a culture where “enough” is sanity, not scarcity. As an artist and citizen, I feel charged up to help imagine and model this shift—through my work, my conversations, and the small choices of everyday life.
I’m so glad that resonated with you Sunshine.
That phrase, “enough as sanity,” feels like one of the keystones in rethinking what we mean by prosperity. When artists and citizens like you carry it into your work, conversations, and daily choices, it starts to seed the culture with new possibilities.
The more of us who live that story, the more visible and normal it becomes—and the easier it will be for others to imagine joining in. It becomes an assumption. Thank you for taking it on in your own sphere. That’s exactly how big cultural shifts begin.
Yes! I see this as the New Earth.
Cecil, how do you propose we reduce the population from 8+ billion down to the 2-3 billion you're fantasizing about? Do we mass produce those death pods from Canada so people can just end their lives when they're not happy any more? Or does the government decide who should die i.e. the undesireables, ugly, fat, homeless, specific races, etc????? This is some fantasy. Glad it's only that.
Thanks for reading and for raising the concern Annette.
I’m not talking about anything violent, coercive, or government-imposed, and I’m certainly not advocating harm toward anyone. The whole point of my article was to highlight the possibility of a peaceful, voluntary, centuries-long transition through education, cultural change, and the freedom for people everywhere to choose smaller families if they wish.
Population size changes naturally when people - especially women - have access to education, healthcare, and economic security. We’ve already seen it in countries where fertility rates have dropped without force, simply because people have the freedom to decide.
The “2–3 billion” figure is not a call for some sudden culling, it’s a thought experiment based on what the Earth might sustain if everyone enjoyed a decent, resource-intensive standard of living. If we walk intentionally toward that balance over generations, no “death pods” or authoritarian measures are necessary—just collective awareness and voluntary action for the sake of long-term sustainability.
I believe artists, educators, and citizens can help keep this conversation grounded in empathy, vision, and the greater good, rather than fear or divisiveness.
Thanks Cecil for your explanation. My knee-jerk response was just seeing the reduction of that number to a more livable one and I just couldn't see (or use my imagination) as to how that reduction could happen. Still, it's a utopian vision, one that might only happen if another flood wiped out most of what is and the humans started over again. Would make a great film if we could picture that new reality you speak of.
Well, there is always the natural disaster scenario and that can always happen with a super volcano going off that causes a 10-20 year famine or any number of other things. But humans at this point, with some fore planning as a species, could mitigate many of those scenarios. But we shouldn't wait for nature to wipe us out, we should plan to try to live on the planet sustainably for the next million years. Eternity is a long time.
We start creating that world through imagination. That's the creative community's job.
Sure; it could be a fun exercise for artists and as an assignment for schoolkids. We won't be around to experience such a world but turning imagination into such a fun exercise can release such creativity. It doesn't have to be an exercise in futility just because we won't be around to witness it. Me.....I'll just stick to the present and see what I can do in my own little corner of the planet to try and make it a better place.
Believe it or not, I am actually a loner. I need lots of time to myself, so having children that would require a lot of attention, was not in the cards for me. I loved teaching kids, but I could go home at night and have my alone time. It is not hard for me to be social, but it has to be on my terms, meaning having a choice. My husband, since the pandemic, has been able to work from home, but he goes into work 3 days a week just so I can have my quiet, uninterrupted time. I have been called "selfish" and "not doing God's will", and many childless women have experienced the same. My answer is always, "Should I have kids when I don't want to?" Some people actually say yes. Well, I choose to spend my time differently, to create in other ways, and contribute to society on my own terms. Selfish? Maybe.
Thank you for sharing this Christine.
What you’ve described is exactly the kind of self-awareness and personal choice that I believe should be at the heart of any conversation about population. You know yourself, your limits, and how you want to contribute to the world—and that’s a far better foundation for life decisions than social pressure or guilt.
It’s striking how quickly people label someone “selfish” for not having children, yet rarely apply the same word to those who have kids without the desire or capacity to truly raise them. Your point about contributing in other ways—teaching, creating, shaping community—underscores that there are many ways to fulfill a meaningful role in society.
If more people had the freedom and social support to make the choice you’ve made, I think we’d see healthier families, more balanced communities, and, over time, a natural and peaceful shift in our population trajectory.
Thanks, Cecil. What people don’t understand is that these are antiquated beliefs based on 1. thousands of years ago, 2. Middle Eastern Traditions, 3. a time where there were no medical options. Even as recent as the migration from the east coast to the west coast, my great, great grandparents had 14 children and lost 7 of them on their migration to the west coast. It was at a time when perils to the survival of families was a huge consideration, or in general for that matter, and is largely passed on through churches and other religion based traditions calling it God’s edicts. It’s not that day anymore, and I don’t feel any less of a woman for not having children because it was my choice, not something to be pitied.
I write about this here: https://www.touchonian.com/p/plan-for-failure
It used to be that those now antiquated ideas made sense. but it is time to rethink those traditions and attitudes that are, at this point, dangerous to our global future. Over abundance also leads to failure not just scarcity. Women especially feel this pressure to 'serve the species' through reproduction in a way that men don't I think. In that case, to preserve the species and help the children to have a good future, keeping birthrates low to preserve global resources is the motherly thing to do if you ask me.
Exactly.