Slashdot Mirror

Not just "Ishmael", but especially "The Story of B" and "My Ishmael" fundamentally changed the way I view our culture. It's been one of the few books in my life that has answered more questions than it raises; fascinating stuff.

Check out the author's website at

http://www.ishmael.org/

Don't agree with everything, but Daniel Quinn's essay on education is a must read.

http://ishmael.org/Education/W...

Some excerpts...

"Of course, then, as now, everyone knew that the citizen's education was doing no such thing. It was perceived then--as now--that there was something strangely wrong with the schools. They were failing--and failing miserably--at delivering on these enticing promises. Ah well, teachers weren't being paid enough, so what could you expect? We raised teachers' salaries--again and again and again--and still the schools failed. Well, what could you expect? The schools were physically decrepit, lightless, and uninspiring. We built new ones--tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of them--and still the schools failed. Well, what could you expect? The curriculum was antiquated and irrelevant. We modernized the curriculum, did our damnedest to make it relevant--and still the schools failed. Every week--then as now--you could read about some bright new idea that would surely "fix" whatever was wrong with our schools: the open classroom, team teaching, back to basics, more homework, less homework, no homework--I couldn't begin to enumerate them all. Hundreds of these bright ideas were implemented--thousands of them were implemented--and still the schools failed.

"During the Great Depression it became urgently important to keep young people off the job market for as long as possible, and so it came to be understood that a twelfth-grade education was essential for every citizen. As before, it didn't much matter what was added to fill up the time, so long as it was marginally plausible. Let's have them learn how to analyze a poem, even if they never read another one in their whole adult life. Let's have them read a great classic novel, even if they never read another one in their whole adult life. Let's have them study world history, even if it all just goes in one ear and out the other. Let's have them study Euclidean geometry, even if two years later they couldn't prove a single theorem to save their lives. All these things and many, many more were of course justified on the basis that they would contribute to the success and rich fulfilment that these children would experience as adults. Except, of course, that it didn't. But no one wanted to know about that. No one would have dreamed of testing young people five years after graduation to find out how much of it they'd retained. No one would have dreamed of asking them how useful it had been to them in realistic terms or how much it had contributed to their success and fulfilment as humans. What would be the point of asking them to evaluate their education? What did they know about it, after all? They were just high-school graduates, not professional educators.

"At the end of the Second World War, no one knew what the economic future was going to be like. With the disappearance of the war industries, would the country fall back into the pre-war depression slump? The word began to go out that the citizen's education should really include four years of college. Everyone should go to college. As the economy continued to grow, however, this injunction began to be softened. Four years of college would sure be good for you, but it wasn't part of the citizen's education, which ultimately remained a twelfth-grade education.

"And it should be noted that our high-school graduates are reliably entry-level workers. We want them to have to grab the lowest rung on the ladder. What sense would it make to give them skills that would make it possible for them to grab the second rung or the third rung? Those are the rungs their older brothers and sisters are reaching for. And if this year's graduates were reaching for the second or third rungs, who would be doing the work at the bottom? The business people who do the hiring constantly complain that graduates know absolutely nothing, have virtually no useful skills at all. But in truth how could it be otherwise

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html
"Above all. what about the world today? One-third to one-half of humanity are said to go to bed hungry every night. In the Old Stone Age the fraction must have been much smaller. This is the era of hunger unprecedented. Now, in the time of the greatest technical power, is starvation an [institution]. Reverse another venerable formula: the amount of hunger increases relatively and absolutely with the evolution of culture. This paradox is my whole point. Hunters and gatherers have by force of circumstances an objectively low standard of living. But taken as their objective, and given their adequate means of production. all the people's material wants usually can be easily satisfied.
The world's most primitive people have few possessions. but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilisation. It has grown with civilisation, at once as an invidious distinction between classes and more importantly as a tributary relation that can render agrarian peasants more susceptible to natural catastrophes than any winter camp of Alaskan Eskimo."

However this could be fixed in our society with a basic income (and/or other changes):
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html

Every age has its challenges. Twenty thousand years ago, there was no malaria (a side-effect of agriculture), no threat of nuclear war or bioterrorism or nanotech or robotics run amok, communities and familes were probably stronger overall than in industrialized countries, people ate more vegetables and so had little cancer, diabetes, gout, or heart disease, people got a lot of sunlight and so autism and allergies were probably very rare, people who "worked" did so directly for themselves and their families and communities without some complex bureaucratic supervision alienating them from what they were doing, education was very hands-on, religion was likely more a direct experience connected with nature and community for most people, the planet seemed like an endless vista for growth with free land everywhere relative to the number of people, addictions as a "pleasure trap" were harder to get stuck in, etc. etc.. Oh, sure, there were bad things about those times too. My point is not that such times were uniformly "better" (where would we be without twenty-thousand years of dog-breeding to create "man's best friend"? :-), just that the issue is more nuanced than you suggest -- some things have improved greatly, but other things have gotten worse in some ways for a large percentage of the population. Increasing addiction rates are just one sign of social stress and a dysfunctional economic system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

Consider as an example of a conflict between an old way of living an modern society:
"Christian Missionary Deconverted by Tribe"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3q6Cid1po

And:
http://www.ishmael.org/origins/Beyond_Civilization/
"Civilization, in effect, represents an attempt to improve upon tribalism by replacing it with hierarchalism. Every civilization brought forth in the course of human history has been an intrinsically hierarchical affair--in every age and locale, East and West, as well as every civilization that grew up independently of ours in the New World. Because it's intrinsically hierarchical, civilization ben

Dan Quinn has some very insteresting ideas you might want to check out:

http://www.ishmael.org/

Basically, it's all about food production. Once we freeze the yearly food production output at the current amount, population growth will stop. No extra famines or revolts (we're having those already, remember?).

His Book "The Story of B" contains a great analogy about the reproduction among mice.

In nature, if a species gets too populated for the food supply, individuals starve until the population is reduced to the point that the food supply can fully support it again.

This. As long as we have a food surplus, we will have population growth.

Also, read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn.

We are all members of a single tribe of humans dating back about 8-10 thousand years. We are all ancestors of the tribe that began the "agricultural revolution." The time when we decided that humans, after living for hundreds of thousands of years within the laws of life and being an extremely successful species, were no longer bound by those silly rules which make life work. Not only that, every tenet of our tribe says that we must live completely opposed to those rules. Not only that, but they also tell us that this is the only right way to live. The only way to be human. How many times do you hear the phrases (or use them yourself) being treated like a human being or acting like a decent human? Believe it or not, there is no such thing.

It is true, we are all decendents of Adam. Not in the literal sense, but look at it like this. The story of Adam and Eve dates back as far as we know to the beginning of history. History was begun during this time period. This story was not our story originally. It was a story told about us, by those who were living near us and saw how we spent our lives. It was their explanation for why anyone would live such a toilsome and pitiful life. "These people live as though they had the very knowledge of the Gods, believing they know Good from Evil. Believing they know what should live and what should die. They Gods have damned them for this, that must be why they would live their lives not in the way everything else lives; in the garden of Eden where all is provided. Instead they are cursed to forever live by the sweat of their brow, pulling their food from the ground. Do not live this way." That's what the story is about. We took the story as our own as we were conquering our neighboring tribes. That's just how we do it. Assimilate or destroy. Manifest destiny. For a recent example that's easy to relate to, look at our conquest of the US from the natives who had been here for a long, long time. It's just how our tribe works.

I go on endlessly. I think this is the most important thing in the world for anyone to realize. We are not humanity. We are one tribe, who have long overstepped our bounds in pursuit of a lifestyle that is not sustainable. And like the old wives' tale of the frog in boiling water, we're lulled to sleep as we burn alive. I would like nothing more than to spit out that damned apple and walk away...but our tribe will not allow this to happen. Nothing is allowed to live outside of our ways.

Gah, I lose my train of thought entirely and I have to go to work. Go read some of the stuff this guy writes on the subject. He's far more coherent on the subject than I.

In one sentence, we are cannibals.

Usual "Ishmael" plug: Don't mistake what *one culture* is currently doing to the planet with what an entire species is doing, especially if we've only been doing it for 10,000 years or so until it has reached a global scale. That's only a tiny fraction of the species' entire existance, and it will naturally come to a full stop once we run out of resources. So go pick up a copy of "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn and find out what others think about this "the entire human species is evil / a virus / simply fulfilling its destiny" fad that mother Culture would love to have you believe.

Check out this site for more information if you're interested, and this essay for a good overview on Dan's ideas.

In one sentence, we are cannibals.

Usual "Ishmael" plug: Don't mistake what *one culture* is currently doing to the planet with what an entire species is doing, especially if we've only been doing it for 10,000 years or so until it has reached a global scale. That's only a tiny fraction of the species' entire existance, and it will naturally come to a full stop once we run out of resources. So go pick up a copy of "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn and find out what others think about this "the entire human species is evil / a virus / simply fulfilling its destiny" fad that mother Culture would love to have you believe.

Check out this site for more information if you're interested, and this essay for a good overview on Dan's ideas.

Oops, that triggered my soapbox mode ;-)

Greedy as a culture, yes. Greedy as a species, definitely no. Humans have lived sustainably in many places on earth for millions of years before the rise of our culture 10,000 years ago, fueled by the "blessing" of inventing totalitarian agriculture and waging war on the rest of creation.

This way of living as a concept is unique in our culture and its most dangerous dogma, that man can do whatever he damn well likes without having to fear any repercussions or ill effects, because we are separate from the rest of the living community and not bound by the same laws (the laws of ecology, that is).

This site has some very interesting information on the subject (short form: read the excellent novel "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn). If we'd have to change an entire species in order to secure our long term survival, I'd share your pessimism, but thankfully it's only a culture and its vision that needs changing.

"It's just sick to even think of what might be a reality check for all of humanity"

Depends on what you define as "civilization". In our culture, it's usually assigned to the start of people being totally dependent on agriculture for making a living, thus producing huge food surplusses and spreading like wildfire because of the resulting overpopulation.

As you correctly point out, they did not spread into an empty world. There must have been hundreds if not thousands of other cultures around which had quite a different lifestyle and switched to totalitarian agriculture either by force "we need your land to grow crops" or sometimes by choice (although making a living by agriculture is much harder work than making a living by hunting and gathering).

I think it was quite a similar process to what is happening to the last tribes of mankind in the rainforests all around the world now. Taker culture (ours) ventures into their territory, they briefly fight for their old way of life but eventually are assimilated, or if they continue to refuse to accept our vision and way of living, simply killed and done away with.

Interestingly enough, their societies usually don't have the problems that we always moan about (abuse, crime, drug addiction, you name it), or have very effective ways to deal with these problems.

Usual plug to answer those questions: read Dan Quinn's book Ishmael or a summary of his ideas here on our "major" religions if you are interested.

Cheers,

uwe

Depends on what you define as "civilization". In our culture, it's usually assigned to the start of people being totally dependent on agriculture for making a living, thus producing huge food surplusses and spreading like wildfire because of the resulting overpopulation.

As you correctly point out, they did not spread into an empty world. There must have been hundreds if not thousands of other cultures around which had quite a different lifestyle and switched to totalitarian agriculture either by force "we need your land to grow crops" or sometimes by choice (although making a living by agriculture is much harder work than making a living by hunting and gathering).

I think it was quite a similar process to what is happening to the last tribes of mankind in the rainforests all around the world now. Taker culture (ours) ventures into their territory, they briefly fight for their old way of life but eventually are assimilated, or if they continue to refuse to accept our vision and way of living, simply killed and done away with.

Interestingly enough, their societies usually don't have the problems that we always moan about (abuse, crime, drug addiction, you name it), or have very effective ways to deal with these problems.

Usual plug to answer those questions: read Dan Quinn's book Ishmael or a summary of his ideas here on our "major" religions if you are interested.

Cheers,

uwe

There is no better preparation for corporate life than going there, knowing what it's all about that fscked our culture up so badly (and I'm on about the global taker culture, not our "precious" east vs. west subdivisions and so on).

Enjoy & good luck with your new job!

Uwe

Yeah, the problem is that a highly US-driven mono-culture is sweeping the world. This mono-culture is best described by Daniel Quinn as Takers/Leavers, or if you will gorts and gortbusters.

Fundamentally, Life is killing. There are only two pathways from that statement: blasphemy and sanctity. You destroy a culture to implement english, Mc Donald's, Ford, and Victoria's Secret... much difference than expressing tolerance, preserving that culture to be remembered, and holding the people of that culture as equals.

I am referring to any society/culture that does not live in harmony with nature. Not to get all native-american on ya or other aboriginal society, but there is a clear disction to be made: humans lived for thousands of years without destroying the earth. We (meaning everyone from the past 2000 years, or even more recently) are screwing that up.

Take a look at ishmael.org, Daniel Quinn breaks it down into Takers and Leavers. aka, Gorts, and Gortbusters.

In regards to the other species, we should note that given the natural course of history the planet's natural animals are huge dinosaurs. They lasted for millions of years, the earth was a jungle planet for longer then we can imagine.

No, man is part of nature. We depend on our environment and other species just like the rest of the living things on this planet. Granted, we do have just as much right to use the land as any other animal, but not more right than any other. We are currently treading way over the line in this regard, not from a destructive instinct but from the perfectly natural instinct of self-preservation.

Unfortunately, the undeniable effect of totalitarian agriculture (converting as much of the earth's biomass to human mass as we desire) is the usurping of the very species and environment on which we depend. We cannot stand separate and ultimately control every aspect of our environment on this planet, and it would be foolish to aim for this goal as a species.

I recommend reading Daniel Quinn's work for a better explanation.

The problem isn't population control, it's food control. What are you made of? Moonbeams? Dust? Think for a second. Or even better, go and read Dan's address to the Houston faculty of Health Science at the URL above.

Cheers,

uwe

Social programs cannot stop global warming.

You can throw more money each year at telling people to turn down the heating, but each year the human population increases closer to (or perhaps beyond) the carrying capacity of the planet. This is the real problem. I have perfect confidence in the ability of life on this planet to survive a 5-10 F drop in temperature (its been done before). The human race is no exception - we are a non-specialist species with an ability to live in many climates. The article seems more worried about a decline in economic prosperity in the developed world;

"it could soon trigger a dramatic and abrupt cooling throughout the North Atlantic region--where, not incidentally, some 60 percent of the world's economy is based."

Sounds like that would be something you are in favour of.

P.S. saying that it must be right because it was written by the head of the WHOI is arguing to the person an not a valid scientific argument. There is no mention of peer review of this article, and it has a single author

That mentality will drive our species to extinction. For proof, read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. For more immediate information, read this. Some of your points are good, i.e. that there are checks and balances in place. However, in the last 10000 years alone humans have seized the role of proprietor on this planet and have single-handedly changed permanently these mechanisms. If you're as observant as your post suggests, you owe it to yourself to read the book I have listed above... it would clear up a lot of the confusion you must feel.

It's the best explanation of "how things came to be this way" within our global culture I have read so far, and his logic and reasoning is very interesting.

If you've ever wondered how "humanity" as we like to call ourselves (but only the members of our culture) came from a relatively stable population to the brink of a global collapse within just 500 generations, then this book is for you. From glacial growth to exponential growth.

Check this site
for further reading if you're interested.

and no, I am not talking about genital-mutilating
weirdos running around in the desert ;-)

Tribal peoples (no, not the taliban ;-) have lived in "anarchy" for literally millions of years, and usually before being overrun by our taker culture, will fight to death rather than live "our" way, namely waging war against the whole community of life on this planet.

Blaming religions (non-organized or organized) is blaming the symptoms. Have you ever asked yourself why salvationist religions formed in the first place? Why do we hold the firm belief that humanity itself is flawed? find out more at Ishmael.org, or even better, read Dan Quinns book "Ishmael".

Cheers, Uwe

You sound like a stereotypical caricature of a republican: don't give a fuck, long as it makes a buck. Sad, because some republicans care.

A single childs footprint in a 120x120 piece of real estate... Wow, that's small... No. The ANWR is huge. The result is a big-ass footprint. And unlike a child's shoe tread, this footprint is going to be a stinking, filthy, contaminated cesspool of pollution, disrupting the lives of wildlife all around. So I wouldn't see much human presence. How much would I hear? Or smell? It doesn't take much drilling to be drilling the fuck out of something.

And what makes you think it will stop there? Considering that the amount of drilling there is now zero, I observe an alarming trend. And since the oil industry has done such a great job with the coastal plain, I'm sure they'll do a great job preserving the AWNR.

Not that you'd give a shit, and neither would Neal Boortz. Well, I would. I've been to Alaska. I've been to the refuge. And when I go back, I don't want to see a damn oil drill there. How long till someone finds something valuable in Yellowstone?

I'm sure the locals would love the jobs. If I knew a way to give them jobs without drilling, I would. I don't. Sad. But this isn't just about them. I'm not telling them what is best for them. It isn't, in the short term anyway. But what, you think they are the only ones this decision will affect? I'm not saying what's best for them. What I'm telling everyone who will listen is: "Hey, cut it out, or we're all fucked."

What's the lesson of California? Have you ever been to LA? You ever been a few miles out of LA, and not been able to see the damn city? It's fucking disgusting. Or Gary, Indiana, which you can tell when you are driving past by the smell. And it had to get that bad before they started to open their eyes and say "gee, this is kinda fucked."

The answer isn't to expand "present" energy sources. Those sources will be gone soon, ANWR drilling or not. We need to change our methods, and attitudes, or we will be living like our ancestors. And like or not, you will be too.

Cheers, Uwe

Cheers, Uwe

I can't help but be baffled by how obvious it is that Microsoft embodies the Taker form of Mother Culture. We must keep the food under lock and key in order to make the world work for us. If we were to allow diversity in our culture, then we can't survive.... give me a break.

If you haven't, read Ishmael

No my friend, the people who will change the world are the same people who got us in the god-awfull mess we are all in at the moment:

Well, we know for sure that it won't be you, friend. You, who in your long lifespan have seen all that there is to see in this wicked world, have achieved sage wisdom in just 29 years. Surely there is nothing left under the sun that would surprise you.

How downright dreary! To realize that you have already discovered everything,and have so many years left to look forward to nothing but stewing in your own bile, or perhaps finding a few to share your misery with, all the while observing those ignorant and naive peons who lead useless lives working for change and better lives for the few people around them that they can affect, knowing that they are just drops in the bucket, and that, while a few people might be better off for these lost souls' compassion, since it hasn't affected you yet, it must be wasted effort.

I apologize for the criticism, but if this is really how you see things, it might help you if someone kicked you in the ass now and then. My favorite line in the article was:

The country stands at the cusp of an enormous sociology experiment: what happens when you give smart, creative people the means to pursue their ideas?

Even if you think JWZ is just yanking his bean on this club, you have to think that this might be a good point, in general. It might even appeal to whatever's left of the uncorrupted child-like desire to be part of the solution rather than the embittered, cynical, establishment preference to be part of the problem.

I know that if I sit around and wait for the ruling parties to have an attack of conscience before I switch to the winning team, I'm going to die pissed and lonely. Be proud to be the underdog! Be suspicious of any establishment, especially anti-establishment establishments, and do your own thing. Hopefully that's working for the world you want to live in, not resignation to failure.

Think globally, act locally. Proud to be a naive peon.

Call it evolution, call it adaptation, call it what you will. I personally call it life. To me they all are terms for the same thing. The weak traits die out and the strong traits survive. It is not always the prettiest way to handle things, but it works. How do I know that it works? If it didn't would life have continued, and even propigated on this planet for the last billion or so years? I think that the answer to that is obvious.
I am a little offended that people refuse to teach evolution in the classroom. That means that they are not promoting the education of life. I guess that they expect man to handle all evolution, after all that is what people are preached to about day after day. "Man is dominant. It is man's duty to take over the world." I disagree, but apparently there are some people in KAnsas who disagree with me. Alas, what a truly blind world we live in. Check out this book, it is very interesting: "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn - it will change the way you look at man.
--------------------------------------------

lets not get carried away with forcing the hand of mother nature. There are ecological repurcussions that would be disastrous if such a thing were to happen. I know that it is a novel idea and pretty humorous, but I am afraid that someone might take a post like this seriously.
www.ishmael.org
--------------------------------------------