When life becomes too passive, we stop earning our self-respect

By David McElroy · January 24, 2026

For almost all of human history, survival itself required effort. Not ambition. Not self-actualization. Not fulfillment. Effort.

If you didn’t work, plan, improvise and endure, you didn’t eat. If you didn’t cooperate with others, you didn’t last long. If you weren’t resourceful, disciplined or at least lucky, your life ended early and harshly.

That reality shaped us. It shaped our bodies, our minds and our sense of who we were. For tens of thousands of generations, human beings learned something fundamental about themselves: I can do hard things — and my life is better because I did them.

That knowledge wasn’t philosophical. It wasn’t abstract. It was visceral. You could see it in the shelter you built, the crops you harvested, the animals you raised, the children you kept alive. Effort led to results, and results led to confidence. Self-esteem was not something you talked about. It was something you earned.

Then, slowly at first, and then very quickly, everything changed.

Over the last few hundred years, we have built technologies that removed enormous amounts of friction from daily life. The Industrial Revolution. Electricity. Modern medicine. Refrigeration. Transportation. Computing. Each generation inherited a world that was, on average, slightly easier than the one before it.

This is an astonishing achievement. It represents one of the greatest success stories in the history of our species. A standard of living that would have seemed like fantasy to someone in 1700 is now considered unremarkable. Most of us live better than kings once did — and most of us do so with relatively little physical effort.

But I wonder whether something important has been lost along the way.

For the first time in human history, it’s possible to live a reasonably comfortable life without having to struggle very much at all. You can survive without building anything, fixing anything, growing anything or mastering any difficult skill. You can meet your basic needs without proving much to yourself or to anyone else.

And while this is a triumph of civilization, it may also be quietly eroding something essential inside us.

What happens to a creature that evolved to overcome hardship when hardship is no longer required? What happens to our sense of self when the connection between effort and outcome becomes increasingly abstract or invisible?

I suspect this is at least part of the modern malaise so many people feel but have trouble naming. We are safer, healthier and more comfortable than any humans who have ever lived, yet anxiety, depression and a vague sense of meaninglessness seem to be everywhere.

We have lives that would look like magic to our ancestors. Food appears when we press a button. Heat comes from the wall. Entertainment flows endlessly from glowing rectangles. Knowledge is instantly accessible. Even many forms of labor have been reduced to simply moving symbols around on screens of glass.

And yet something inside us whispers — in feelings that are too vague to name — that maybe we didn’t really earn this.

Imagine for a moment that actual magic existed.

Imagine you could snap your fingers and create anything you wanted. A beautiful house. A successful career. Admiration. Love. Art. Comfort. Pleasure. No planning. No failure. No long stretches of uncertainty or effort. Just immediate results.

At first, it would feel intoxicating. Then it would feel hollow.

That’s because the satisfaction we get from having something is inseparable from the process of becoming the person who was capable of creating the thing. Without that process, the reward feels unmoored. Undeserved. Temporary.

Modern civilization has become a kind of passive and invisible magic. We didn’t invent most of it. We didn’t build the systems we rely on. We simply inherited them and then built on top of them. And while gratitude is appropriate, inheritance alone does not build self-respect.

So what do we do with this?

We are not going to give up the comforts and protections of modern life, nor should we. That would be both unrealistic and ungrateful. The magic is here to stay. The question is how we reintroduce the earning of self-respect into lives where survival no longer demands it.

The answer might lie in choosing difficulty — in a voluntary and deliberate way.

Not pointless suffering. Not performative struggle. But meaningful effort aimed at creating something that did not exist before and would not exist without us.

This might mean building rather than merely consuming. Writing something that costs you time and attention. Learning a skill that you find difficult. Taking responsibility for other people. Creating order where there was none. Making commitments that require you to show up even when you don’t feel like it.

It means deliberately placing yourself in situations where effort matters again. Where failure is possible. Where the outcome depends on who you choose to become in the process.

This is not about nostalgia for a harsher past. It’s about acknowledging a psychological truth: human beings need to see themselves as capable, contributing agents in the world. When life no longer demands that of us, we must demand it of ourselves.

Self-esteem cannot be downloaded. Meaning cannot be automated. Purpose does not arrive via subscription.

These things emerge when you can look at something real and honestly say, I helped make this and it’s good.

Modern life has removed many of the external pressures that once forced people to develop strength and resourcefulness. That is a gift, but it also places a new responsibility on us.

If we want lives that feel earned and deserved, we have to consciously choose the kinds of challenges our ancestors had no choice but to face for mere survival.

The magic we’ve inherited gave us freedom. Now we have to decide what we will do with it.

Share on Social Networks

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

Related Posts