Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael": Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" » Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael"

Page: 1 2

Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael"

Luchok
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2003

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 148

Posted 05/19/04 - 06:58 PM:	#1
I found the ideas on this book very interesting. Here's a wikipedia link on the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel) Basically, it deals with the fact that we modern humans have lived on the planet 120,000+ years and jet it has taken us roughly 5000 of a determined way of living to find ourselves at the brink of collapse. Where did we go wrong? The answer is found in a kind of socratic dialogue between a man and a gorilla (Ishmael). Very good read, interesting insights about the nature of a lot of problems our species are facing in the present. Anyone read this? Any thoughts on it?

poohat
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Location: London

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 147

Posted 05/19/04 - 09:02 PM:	#2
Disclaimer: I've not read Ishmael, but I have read the Story of B. I dont buy it. I have 2 primary objections to him, one factual and one moral. 1) I think he (like many people) completely misrepresents the issue of overpopulation, and given that his 'disaster theory' is largely based around this, it is a serious hole in his work. Quite simply, the 'world' is not becoming overpopulated in any meaningful sense, only certain countries are. Most rich Western countries such as America, Britiain, France or Germany are not facing overpopulation problems, nor are they likely to in the near future. Yes, if you only look at the figure for the world's total population it appears to be rising at terrifying levels, but this is mostly occuring in countries such as China and India - if you look at the population growth rates for countries such as America, you will find them to be perhaps lower than you would expect. If overpopulation ever becomes a serious problem, I doubt it will cause the end of Western civilization, nor do I think Western civilization will be significantly affected, let alone to the degree Quinn suggests. A lot of Chinese and Indian people might die yes, but the majority of countries which have their populations at a reasonable level will be relatively unharmed. 2) I despise his sense of life, and his vision of what humanity 'should' be. I do not believe that the purpose of humanity is to simply 'survive', nor do I believe that such a role is suited to a creature with the nature of man. Perhaps this may be all that pigs and cows are capable of, but there is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals, despite Quinn's objections, and it lies in the cognitive realm. While non-human animals may not be capable of higher level emotions such as 'happyness', 'joy' and 'ecstasy', humans most definitely are. Humans have radically different psychological needs to animals, and although an animal might be 'content' living a simple life of eating and sleeping, the average human will not be. Yes, if we stayed in our mudhuts we may well survive for another 200,000 years without facing the risk of extinction, but what kind of existence would it be? I would happily trade 800,000 years of savages living in caves for 10,000 years of Western civilisation, and even if everything eventually ends up going wrong, the fact that the West has once existed will remain an everlasting momument to the greatness of which humanity was capable. My goal in life is not simply 'survival', I have far higher aspirations than that.

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA

Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3329

Posted 05/19/04 - 09:32 PM:	#3
poohat wrote: 1) I think he (like many people) completely misrepresents the issue of overpopulation, and given that his 'disaster theory' is largely based around this, it is a serious hole in his work. Quite simply, the 'world' is not becoming overpopulated in any meaningful sense, only certain countries are. Most rich Western countries such as America, Britiain, France or Germany are not facing overpopulation problems, nor are they likely to in the near future. Yes, if you only look at the figure for the world's total population it appears to be rising at terrifying levels, but this is mostly occuring in countries such as China and India - if you look at the population growth rates for countries such as America, you will find them to be perhaps lower than you would expect. If overpopulation ever becomes a serious problem, I doubt it will cause the end of Western civilization, nor do I think Western civilization will be significantly affected, let alone to the degree Quinn suggests. A lot of Chinese and Indian people might die yes, but the majority of countries which have their populations at a reasonable level will be relatively unharmed. I think you grossly underestimate the nature of our "global economy." If the Chinese have too many mouths too feed, they will have to enter global markets for their grain and such. And think about how such an increase in demand will affect prices. This means people in Western nations will have to pay a hell of a lot more for things like grain, and other staples. Humans have radically different psychological needs to animals, and although an animal might be 'content' living a simple life of eating and sleeping, the average human will not be. Yes, if we stayed in our mudhuts we may well survive for another 200,000 years without facing the risk of extinction, but what kind of existence would it be? I would happily trade 800,000 years of savages living in caves for 10,000 years of Western civilisation, and even if everything eventually ends up going wrong, the fact that the West has once existed will remain an everlasting momument to the greatness of which humanity was capable. My goal in life is not simply 'survival', I have far higher aspirations than that. Humans need culture, not SUVs. Humans need to create and learn, but this does not mean spending time, money, and effort so that engineers can design car seats that absorb fart smells (they have those now ). There have been many world civilizations that can be said to stand as a testament to what humanity was capable of. They had science, creativity, and culture. All these things seemed to naturally advance, but currently, we seem to be advancing science while other aspects of humanity have regressed. Britney Spears? I don't care how long humanity survives for. I don't care what we invent. Happiness is important. Happiness in such a bland culture is difficult. Happiness in a civilization where environmental and economical practices are unstable may be short-lived. Personally, I don't see where some gets off thinking Western civilization is better than any form of life for humans. I mean, it is possible to argue that "civilization" is better for humans (much of it came to be as a result of leaders who were power-hungry enough to want to bring so much land under one rule that a civilization was inevitable), but an argument for Western civilization particularly is probably even more shaky. I don't know what you think a "higher" aspiration is, but it sounds more like a romantic notion or cultural ideal than something worthwhile.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5427

Posted 05/20/04 - 02:57 AM:	#4
The reason that we see so much frivolous activity in modern (American ?) is that we put too much money in the hands of frivolous teenagers and expect them to mature automatically. This debases all the activity that panders to these wealthy adolescents. Who can feel proud of designing $100 sport shoes when you can get some for $20? Who can feel proud of producing music (?) cd's that advocate violent machismo? Who can feel proud of manufacturing a SUV that is too big, overpowered, and will be used to intimidate the car in the next lane?
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Luchok
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2003

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 148

Posted 05/20/04 - 01:48 PM:	#5
poohat wrote: 2) I despise his sense of life, and his vision of what humanity 'should' be. I do not believe that the purpose of humanity is to simply 'survive', nor do I believe that such a role is suited to a creature with the nature of man. Perhaps this may be all that pigs and cows are capable of, but there is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals, despite Quinn's objections, and it lies in the cognitive realm. While non-human animals may not be capable of higher level emotions such as 'happyness', 'joy' and 'ecstasy', humans most definitely are. Humans have radically different psychological needs to animals, and although an animal might be 'content' living a simple life of eating and sleeping, the average human will not be. Yes, if we stayed in our mudhuts we may well survive for another 200,000 years without facing the risk of extinction, but what kind of existence would it be? I would happily trade 800,000 years of savages living in caves for 10,000 years of Western civilisation, and even if everything eventually ends up going wrong, the fact that the West has once existed will remain an everlasting momument to the greatness of which humanity was capable. My goal in life is not simply 'survival', I have far higher aspirations than that. Quinn (in Ishmael at least, I have not read Story of B) argues that from the "civilised" or "Takers" perspective, the "Leavers" way is that of "savages living in caves", as you put it. But that's missing the point. The point is that it's not that we humans are intrinsically at odds with nature (as 100,000 years and various cultures prove), is that our culture has lead us to belive that's this is the case, that we can't cooexist peacefully with nature, and that our nature can only be fulfilled at the expense of Nature. Our culture has created the illusion we, somehow, are exempt from the laws of Nature. This can only lead to extintion. From the wikipedia link: "Ishmael goes on to help his student discover what physical law the Takers have rejected as applicable to them and thus not lived in accord with. This law is grounded in the fact that "man is not alone on this planet. He is part of a community, upon which he depends absolutely." This being the Community of Life. The law which he is referring to is the Law of Limited Competition, or the Law of Life , which is in short, "you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war." Ishmael explains that all species inevitably follow this law, or as a consequence go extinct. As a culture the Takers believe it is their right to take as much as they desire from the earth and its living community, while the rule of the Law is that you can take what you need, but must leave the rest alone. As a consequence of the Taker's refusal to abide by the Law of Life, the diversity needed to sustain life on the planet is severely threatened, and the balance between food populations and feeder populations destroyed. As a means of extracting all that is possible from the Earth and settling in one distinct area the Takers develop the universality of agriculture as their ideal. Yet, unlike the Leaver's, the Taker view on agriculture incorporates more than the concept of settlement; it is designed to support growth, unlimited growth. This unlimited growth comes in the form of a constantly increasing food supply that inevitably leads to an increased population. "The Taker population has been proving this for ten thousand years. For ten thousand years they've been steadily increasing food production to feed an increased population, and every time they've done this they've increased it even more." Daniel Quinn dubs this harmful form of agriculture, which is unique to the Taker's, "Totalitarian Agriculture". Ishmael makes the point that as we have attempted to render ourselves exempt from the Law of Limited competition, we have created a huge imbalance in the Community of Life. But, the earth is ultimately self-balancing, and our flouting of the law will ultimately be checked - in the form of our extinction."

blue
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2004
Location: florida

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 57

Posted 05/22/04 - 05:06 AM:	#6
AKG wrote: Humans need culture, not SUVs. Humans need to create and learn, but this does not mean spending time, money, and effort so that engineers can design car seats that absorb fart smells (they have those now ). There have been many world civilizations that can be said to stand as a testament to what humanity was capable of. They had science, creativity, and culture. All these things seemed to naturally advance, but currently, we seem to be advancing science while other aspects of humanity have regressed. Britney Spears? I don't care how long humanity survives for. I don't care what we invent. Happiness is important. Happiness in such a bland culture is difficult. Happiness in a civilization where environmental and economical practices are unstable may be short-lived. Personally, I don't see where some gets off thinking Western civilization is better than any form of life for humans. I mean, it is possible to argue that "civilization" is better for humans (much of it came to be as a result of leaders who were power-hungry enough to want to bring so much land under one rule that a civilization was inevitable), but an argument for Western civilization particularly is probably even more shaky. I don't know what you think a "higher" aspiration is, but it sounds more like a romantic notion or cultural ideal than something worthwhile. perhaps not everyone wants culture. perhaps some people do simply want possessions and personal advancement. perhaps they have no "higher" aspirations. perhaps those who say they do simply feel embarrassed admitting it. as for ishmael i read it several years ago, and i liked it quite a bit. that's not to say that i agree with it. i largely consider it little more than one man preaching his beliefs to willing readers, beliefs that i partially agree with (but only the lesser ideas, not the "greater" one). however, i enjoyed the story itself enough to look past that.
The cosmic order has been made by no god or man, but has always been and always will be: fire everliving, for ever breaking out here and dying out there. A breaking fire will pick out and catch up with all things, hunger and satiety, it rests by changing. All things are a payment for fire, and fire for all things, as goods for gold and gold for goods. -heraclitus

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA

Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3329

Posted 05/22/04 - 11:40 PM:	#7
blue wrote: perhaps not everyone wants culture. perhaps some people do simply want possessions and personal advancement. perhaps they have no "higher" aspirations. perhaps those who say they do simply feel embarrassed admitting it. I'm trying to suggest that which is necessary for human happiness. First of all, I'm going to avoid "personal advancement" because that can mean a number of things. I suppose I'm saying that human happiness requires culture, and does not require possessions. What humans need, quite often, is some purpose. Culture gives them purpose, as do possessions. However, people can find puropse without possessions. I suppose what I meant by "people need culture, not SUVs" is that people need to find a way of life that has meaning, not possessions that have meaning. Or rather, acquiring possessions is only one way of life based on one set of values that may be particular to only some cultures. Culture is not necessarily popular culture, but simply a set of values, and a way of evaluating and choosing and giving purpose to some way of life, and it is not necessary that SUVs must be something of value. I don't know how coherent this is, I'm tired...
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Man of Tradition
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2004
Location: NJ

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 05/23/04 - 09:32 AM:	#8
I enjoyed the book, but found it, like almost all other criticisms of the modern world, to be off base and confused in its understanding of the past. People today assume that the modern, "western" way of seeing things is the only one that has ever dominated civilization- at least "civilizations that matter." That is, those chosen from a list of others that are given arbitrary significance on a falsely linear scale that leads right up to our enlightened epoch. So, I had problems when Quinn talked about the Romans or ancient Egyptians like they were just modern American industrialists in different uniforms with different tools. Their thinking was entirely different; their relationship to their environment was totally different. An attitude of dominion and exploitation toward the earth did not exist in ancient civilizations- even the Romans prayed to trees and the land for forgiveness everytime they removed a tree for firewood, or cleared a wood to farm. Hinduism, which was by all means very different than Quinn's hunter/gathererer paradise, says one of the marks of the decline of man in the age of iniquity and impiety will be his reverence of the earth for mineral wealth alone. So to read an author criticising these cultures like they would all have a publically traded oil corporation on Wall Street now undermined his credibility. Still, his points about our modern, mindless mania for gadgets and toys and bullshit is well taken. These points can be made with a proper orientation and conclusion though, and I think he failed to do this. By the way, the movie Instinct, which is somehow based on that book, is excellent. They scrapped the Gorilla and made it a disillusioned anthropologist (played by Anthony Hopkins) who has just emerged from the jungles of Africa after years. Cuba Gooding Jr, as a psychology student interviewing Hopkings, replaces the student in the book.
"...but then it is precisely in the 'reign of quantity' and only then, that the opinion of the majority can claim to be taken into any consideration at all." -Rene Guenon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times

Objectivist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2003

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 177

Posted 05/23/04 - 06:24 PM:	#9
ishmale fuckin rocked, i cant beleive i wasnt able to find his perspective before i read the book, i was quite ashamed. (i also dont find anything he says "radical" or irrational, but hey, go to his site (google+ishamel) read some of his stuff and if u find something that doesnt make sense, plz post it so we can discuss it) poohat wrote: If overpopulation ever becomes a serious problem, I doubt it will cause the end of Western civilization Ahh wonderful, thats a prime example of western thinkin right there! WE ARE ALL GODS AND ARE UNSTOPPABLE! Unfortunately, as we rape and pillage other villages for crap we need to fuel our consumerism, the rest of the non western world deteriorates. And b/c theres a reaction for every action, we will eventually feel our own effects, hopefully many times more. I think its just important to remember we are PART of nature, instead of separate from it---even tho our society woudl like u to believe differently. the price for american happiness is extremely depressing. like everyhting else, happiness is relative. Take away all of an individuals possessions, come back 2 years later and give the individual a drum, and they are euphoric. annoyingly, this works both ways. in our society we think u must always want more to get happiness, and that can easily become the truth if u adhere (start believing) to it. but our happiness is so "expensive" now. if we can be happy with simple shit that doesnt cost much and doesnt take too huge of a toll on the environment, why not do it? The argument saying "well some people would only be happy if they had their SUVS and expensive happy instigators etc.etc., doesn't work. For EVERYONE could be converted to "simplistic" happiness since its all relative. And i think quinn was kinda hinting at that in ishmael. And somewhat of a tanget, I dunno bout u guys, but it disgust me knowing that we water our lawns and even sidewalks while others in the world die b/c of inadequate water supplies and tainted water But ya, who cares, they are so far away and arent white, so we shouldnt give a rats ass, right?

Man of Tradition
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2004
Location: NJ

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 05/23/04 - 08:00 PM:	#10
If that is the message you got from Ishmael, I think you should read it again... You realize hunter/gatherers' idea of their neighbors almost mandated a constant state of war and total indifference to their neighbor's survival. Maybe every now and then they would get lucky and show their mercy by only murdering the men, and saving the women and children to use as slaves or integrate into their own tribe. (I have no trouble with this- I think it is a beautiful and pure way of life, but, it is the opposite of crying about an African who is unable to control his own country)
"...but then it is precisely in the 'reign of quantity' and only then, that the opinion of the majority can claim to be taken into any consideration at all." -Rene Guenon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.