Ishmael - what did you think of it?

[Lethe]

I finished reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn yesterday. I was wondering what you guys thought of it? He seems to make some very broad generalizations of some very complex subjects. Since it's fiction, I guess he didn't feel the need to list any references for where he got his information.

Is there any historical validity to his interpretation of the Adam/Eve and Cain/Abel myths? I wish he would cite a source from where he got these ideas from.

I would say I agree with his premise on an abstract level. The human species set itself up for unreasonable growth when we learned the techniques of agriculture and animal husbandry. We conveniently side-stepped what is usually the largest limiting factor in species population growth: food availabilty.

Ok, so the human population is out of control and is destroying the planet....what do we do about it? He seems to be short on answers, but he does mention that it is possible to still have advanced civilizations that do not promote the destruction of earth. I disagree on that point.

[bigmonkey]

1. I'm glad to hear a review of this from a DUer.

I do think it's probably difficult to properly weigh whether a non-destructive advanced civilization can exist. We live in a mental and societal environment that is poisoned with paid anti-sustainability propaganda that destroys even the possibility of a common discussion of the matter. When I read Edward Hyams "Soil and Civilization" I felt he made a useful distinction between soil-building and soil destroying civilizations, one that might be useful in this context. My point is that since we may not be able to see the way to sustainablity in the current deliberately poisoned atmosphere, we may need a different atmosphere to clearly see the problem. We may need to counteract the poison, or wait for it to dissipate by itself. Getting to that point seems impossible now, but once there the way may seem different.

[LWolf]

2. I enjoyed it.

It's fiction. As you point out, the move to agriculture is a turning point in human history whether you connect it to nomadic semites or not. The eventual consolidation of food production into corporate hands, corporate agriculture, is a modern issue that has not yet been confronted and dealt with.

If you want to know more about Quinn's perspective on humanity, past, present, and future, you might want to read the sequels:

The Story of B

My Ishmael

[unpossibles]

3. I really liked it a lot

it makes sense that he gave no answers, as it seemed to me the idea was to perhaps make us think about the issues and decide if we can make our own answers. I agree it is a bit simplified, but overall I really enjoyed it.

I do think it is possible to have an advanced civilization that is not cancerous, but I think we need to have a real shift is how we define and glorify progress & consumption. The ultimate irony is that I think the way our culture has evolved was necessary for that stage of our development, but to continue we need another big change. The optimist in me thinks its coming, but it's hard to say what that will be. Perhaps contact with something previously thought impossible such as alien life forms? A new way of thinking about energy?

I've often felt that on a personal level as well as a species level, our greatest strengths tend to be our weaknesses as well, and that no single event is inherently good or bad. Even the most horrific thing you can imagine could in theory result in us realizing that we are all humans or making some other paradigm breakthrough.

I don't mean that to justify horrific actions. On the contrary, I would suggest that those bad moments which potentially could lead to something greater be used as a way to avoid future problems. Having had some very difficult times in my own life, I try to look back and realize that I am who I am - just as humanity is who it is - because of every moment good and bad. We need to learn from history without either grossly oversimplified glorification (a la the "good old days" crowd) or wallowing in the guilt and miseries of it.

I guess what I am getting at is that even though our current problems may have arisen from distancing ourselves from nature and the land, that box has been opened and we need to use our current problem-solving abilities - which owe a lot to said distancing - to find the next solution or the next level of humanity. The optimist in me finds this exciting and possible. The cynic in me says it is as long as we do not let the fools destroy us all first.