A very powerful, succinct insight of our relationship to power. A new perspective for me that inspires to lean into what is possible for our future. Thanks so much!!
Daniel, I've loved reading your Substack. I am fascinated by the power of needlessness, but I want to know how you relate it to biological interdependence.
I understand distinguishing real needs from compensatory wants is central to this piece and you explain this distinction in other essays. What I am wondering about though are the real needs – our need for food and shelter, as well as connection and intimacy. As Van der Kolk writes, "You can be fully in charge of your life only if you acknowledge the reality of your body, in all its visceral dimensions." This body has needs, a lot.
To take this to another level, our life is underpinned by a monumental and interdependent web. All beings, bar autotrophs, live by eating other life. Everything can only exist because of everything else. Or, to use a phrase Schmachtenberger often repeats, "I am because we are."
I would absolutely love to hear your thoughts and how you see these intermingling.
Thank you for this beautiful and thoughtful question. You're pointing to something crucial.
The key distinction isn't about transcending our biological reality, but about how we hold our relationship to these genuine needs. Consider how a securely attached child relates to their needs versus an insecurely attached one. Both have the same biological needs, but the securely attached child trusts in their fulfillment.
Needless power isn't about denying our interdependence - it's about holding our needs from a place of fundamental trust rather than scarcity. When we're not caught in compensatory strategies and psychological need, we can actually participate more fully in the web of life, responding naturally to real needs - both our own and others'.
Thank you for your thoughtful response Daniel. I love the idea that disentangling these allows us to participate more fully in the web of life.
I guess I wonder though about when the fulfilment of genuine needs is not so natural. What about when the scarcity is real? I'm not asking to play devil's advocate, but because you've clearly spent a long time considering radical change scenarios and who you want to be in those.
I suppose what I'm asking is how do we keep showing up securely in situations of real insecurity? This is not an easy question and a bit of a jump, so really no pressure to respond here in the comments section.
Bella, that's such a vital question. You're right to push on this and it's helped me clarify my thinking (I still have a ways to go here, though, so forgive me for anything that doesn't feel clear).
The distinction between systemic insecurity and personal security feels critically important. When scarcity is real - when people lack food, shelter, or safety - we need both inner capacity and collective action.
Secure attachment isn't about denying real threats. It's about maintaining an internal foundation that isn't defined by fear, even amidst genuine hardship. Think of those who've faced extreme circumstances yet remained clear and human throughout. This internal security doesn't erase external challenges, but it transforms how we respond to them. Viktor Frankl's descriptions in 'Man's Search for Meaning' are evidence of this, imo.
When we clarify our relationship with need we see the incalculable value of each human being with new clarity. This recognition naturally generates a commitment to justice. Then our work to create systems where everyone's genuine needs are met arises not from guilt or fear, but from direct perception of how precious each person truly is.
My experience is that this makes us more effective at addressing real scarcity, not less. It lets us respond from love rather than panic or self-protection. It's precisely in situations of genuine insecurity that this capacity becomes most vital.
Daniel, this is such an important point you’ve made: truly beneficial work is beneficial in all cases. This is clumsy phrasing, but I do believe that valuable, good, important (however you want to describe them) things tend to offer multiple positive outcomes and are helpful across a broad range of situations.
On this specific point, I totally agree that secure attachment to reality and the strong internal foundation it offers might not ‘fix’ real scarcity (what move could?) but it is definitely a solid basis from which to start responding.
A little aside, but I just came upon a section in Erich Fromm’s ‘Art of Loving’ which made me think of this thread: if I love another being, I love them as they are, not as I need them to be for my own use.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, and I look forward to reading more of your work!
One of my Dharma teachers, Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche often shares a pithy teaching that has always stuck with me: "Little need, great contentment." This phrase has shaped a lot of choices I've made since I was 16 years old, though the landscape of needs shifted significantly when I became a mother/householder. That's required me to mature my relationship with the resources of time, energy, and money, but clear boundaries around those is stabilizing the field. This process is allowing me to come back to designing a life in which the needs that are real are dynamically and relationally fulfilled, which takes the beauty, joy, grace, and love of it all to the next level.
I agree with almost everything here except this: “we face a crucial challenge: we have few examples of such systems operating at scale”. This isn’t a challenge, this is evidence that organisations built on love are routinely outcompeted in the market. We can speculate why, blame the capitalist system and wish it were different but the hard truth is that systems built on greed and fear outcompete those built on love in terms of impact and power. Which is why our meta crisis is so severe in so many ways.
I disagree. What we're seeing isn't evidence that love-based systems can't compete, but rather that we're in the early stages of learning how to organize them effectively. Love-based systems haven't failed; they simply haven't fully evolved yet.
My sense is that there's an evolutionary process happening right now that's forcing innovation within love-based organizing. We're discovering new forms of human coordination that take advantage of emerging technology, innovative worldviews, and networks of people who have done the work to clarify their desire. These new forms will be capable of "competing" with greed and fear-based systems in unprecedented ways.
The challenge isn't that love-based systems are inherently less competitive - it's that we're still learning how to structure and scale them effectively.
This evolution isn't just possible - it's necessary for our survival. The meta-crisis itself is creating selection pressure for more effective forms of coordination. The systems based on greed and fear are reaching their limits, generating problems they can't solve. The emergence of more effective love-based systems is the next step in our collective evolution.
The bittersweet moment when somebody said what you’ve wanted to say for months. But better than you ever could.
A very powerful, succinct insight of our relationship to power. A new perspective for me that inspires to lean into what is possible for our future. Thanks so much!!
Thank you! I hope it bears fruit in your life.
Daniel, I've loved reading your Substack. I am fascinated by the power of needlessness, but I want to know how you relate it to biological interdependence.
I understand distinguishing real needs from compensatory wants is central to this piece and you explain this distinction in other essays. What I am wondering about though are the real needs – our need for food and shelter, as well as connection and intimacy. As Van der Kolk writes, "You can be fully in charge of your life only if you acknowledge the reality of your body, in all its visceral dimensions." This body has needs, a lot.
To take this to another level, our life is underpinned by a monumental and interdependent web. All beings, bar autotrophs, live by eating other life. Everything can only exist because of everything else. Or, to use a phrase Schmachtenberger often repeats, "I am because we are."
I would absolutely love to hear your thoughts and how you see these intermingling.
Thank you for this beautiful and thoughtful question. You're pointing to something crucial.
The key distinction isn't about transcending our biological reality, but about how we hold our relationship to these genuine needs. Consider how a securely attached child relates to their needs versus an insecurely attached one. Both have the same biological needs, but the securely attached child trusts in their fulfillment.
Needless power isn't about denying our interdependence - it's about holding our needs from a place of fundamental trust rather than scarcity. When we're not caught in compensatory strategies and psychological need, we can actually participate more fully in the web of life, responding naturally to real needs - both our own and others'.
Thank you for your thoughtful response Daniel. I love the idea that disentangling these allows us to participate more fully in the web of life.
I guess I wonder though about when the fulfilment of genuine needs is not so natural. What about when the scarcity is real? I'm not asking to play devil's advocate, but because you've clearly spent a long time considering radical change scenarios and who you want to be in those.
I suppose what I'm asking is how do we keep showing up securely in situations of real insecurity? This is not an easy question and a bit of a jump, so really no pressure to respond here in the comments section.
Bella, that's such a vital question. You're right to push on this and it's helped me clarify my thinking (I still have a ways to go here, though, so forgive me for anything that doesn't feel clear).
The distinction between systemic insecurity and personal security feels critically important. When scarcity is real - when people lack food, shelter, or safety - we need both inner capacity and collective action.
Secure attachment isn't about denying real threats. It's about maintaining an internal foundation that isn't defined by fear, even amidst genuine hardship. Think of those who've faced extreme circumstances yet remained clear and human throughout. This internal security doesn't erase external challenges, but it transforms how we respond to them. Viktor Frankl's descriptions in 'Man's Search for Meaning' are evidence of this, imo.
When we clarify our relationship with need we see the incalculable value of each human being with new clarity. This recognition naturally generates a commitment to justice. Then our work to create systems where everyone's genuine needs are met arises not from guilt or fear, but from direct perception of how precious each person truly is.
My experience is that this makes us more effective at addressing real scarcity, not less. It lets us respond from love rather than panic or self-protection. It's precisely in situations of genuine insecurity that this capacity becomes most vital.
Daniel, this is such an important point you’ve made: truly beneficial work is beneficial in all cases. This is clumsy phrasing, but I do believe that valuable, good, important (however you want to describe them) things tend to offer multiple positive outcomes and are helpful across a broad range of situations.
On this specific point, I totally agree that secure attachment to reality and the strong internal foundation it offers might not ‘fix’ real scarcity (what move could?) but it is definitely a solid basis from which to start responding.
A little aside, but I just came upon a section in Erich Fromm’s ‘Art of Loving’ which made me think of this thread: if I love another being, I love them as they are, not as I need them to be for my own use.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, and I look forward to reading more of your work!
One of my Dharma teachers, Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche often shares a pithy teaching that has always stuck with me: "Little need, great contentment." This phrase has shaped a lot of choices I've made since I was 16 years old, though the landscape of needs shifted significantly when I became a mother/householder. That's required me to mature my relationship with the resources of time, energy, and money, but clear boundaries around those is stabilizing the field. This process is allowing me to come back to designing a life in which the needs that are real are dynamically and relationally fulfilled, which takes the beauty, joy, grace, and love of it all to the next level.
Gorgeous, well said. Yes, needing nothing skillfully seems to depend on clarified boundaries. 🤔
Could you say more about your distinction between authentic desire and neurotic need?
Hey there see if this piece clarifies things for you
https://open.substack.com/pub/intimatemirror/p/facing-the-truth-of-your-desire?r=qlwf&utm_medium=ios
Yes, yes it did! Ty🙏
As I read these words I feel my heart release and my wants disappear. I love coming back to your essays, thank you
Wow thank you that makes me very happy to read. 🥰
This is a beautiful way to call us into action and self-organizing.
❤️🔥
Thank you for writing and sharing this urgently needed Sunday sermon.
🙏
Fuck yes!
I agree with almost everything here except this: “we face a crucial challenge: we have few examples of such systems operating at scale”. This isn’t a challenge, this is evidence that organisations built on love are routinely outcompeted in the market. We can speculate why, blame the capitalist system and wish it were different but the hard truth is that systems built on greed and fear outcompete those built on love in terms of impact and power. Which is why our meta crisis is so severe in so many ways.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment.
I disagree. What we're seeing isn't evidence that love-based systems can't compete, but rather that we're in the early stages of learning how to organize them effectively. Love-based systems haven't failed; they simply haven't fully evolved yet.
My sense is that there's an evolutionary process happening right now that's forcing innovation within love-based organizing. We're discovering new forms of human coordination that take advantage of emerging technology, innovative worldviews, and networks of people who have done the work to clarify their desire. These new forms will be capable of "competing" with greed and fear-based systems in unprecedented ways.
The challenge isn't that love-based systems are inherently less competitive - it's that we're still learning how to structure and scale them effectively.
This evolution isn't just possible - it's necessary for our survival. The meta-crisis itself is creating selection pressure for more effective forms of coordination. The systems based on greed and fear are reaching their limits, generating problems they can't solve. The emergence of more effective love-based systems is the next step in our collective evolution.