Where are we headed?

brianlux

I finished reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael today and felt like I'd found something I've been looking for for quite a long time- a book that put's a lot of the pieces together without sermonizing or giving away too much or pretending to offer "an incantation" or "a magic word that would sweep all the nastiness away".

I won't give the book away or suggest anyone has to read it to engage in this discussion (though suffice it to say I highly recommend the book) but what I will throw out here for discussion are a few things the book challenges us to ponder:

Will we change as a species, die off or remain the same?

Should we stay the course and hope for a last minute fix, become a hunter gather society in order avoid altering the environment such that large mammals including ours become extinct, or is there some other choice?

If someone you knew we're to choose a very simple, basic lifestyle such as hunter-gatherer/herders would you consider that "regressing"?

Can we continue to operate as a consumer species ("takers") and still somehow allow for a balance of nature and the ability for other forms of life to continue?

What approaches to solutions or change do you think work best? Legislation? Coercion? Education? Do nothing? Others?

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

I finished reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael today and felt like I'd found something I've been looking for for quite a long time- a book that put's a lot of the pieces together without sermonizing or giving away too much or pretending to offer "an incantation" or "a magic word that would sweep all the nastiness away".

Good questions BrianL...I like the way you think..
Good book, I haven’t read it in years, but I recall it raising similar questions with me. (If we agree it’s a good book though, some folks in here will call us Eddie drones…)

brianlux wrote:

Will we change as a species, die off or remain the same?

I’ve always thought that humans will (maybe have already), outsmarted nature. And I don’t mean that in a good way. I think humans will always find a way to thrive, unfortunately, at the cost of our neighbors (plants and animals), our planet, and environments.

I always thought or speculated that one day, hundreds of years in the future, humans might be thriving, and fighting ourselves to maintain our planet, not sustain. But I think before we kill it off completely, which could take thousands of years, some natural event will occur to reset the balance until the whole planet is one day burnt to a cinder when the Sun runs out of fuel. I see it kind of like an ant pile in your backyards that expands and expands until you get the Raid can (the Sun) and eliminate them for a bit.

brianlux wrote:

Should we stay the course and hope for a last minute fix, become a hunter gather society in order avoid altering the environment such that large mammals including ours become extinct, or is there some other choice?

I think there are enough of us who ARE actually concerned, that will work hard to preserve the planet in our lifetimes, and possibly a few more generations…after that, its just too hard to predict I think.

brianlux wrote:

If someone you knew we're to choose a very simple, basic lifestyle such as hunter-gatherer/herders would you consider that "regressing"?

I have a friend I very much envy for becoming a vegan and growing a lot of his and his g/f’s food. I find it very enlightening and quite the opposite of regressing. A lot of my other friends think he’s a bit crazy though.

brianlux wrote:

Can we continue to operate as a consumer species ("takers") and still somehow allow for a balance of nature and the ability for other forms of life to continue?

Nope…the Raid Can will come out sooner or later.
Look at the BP disaster…who really knows what damage it has done. World population figures scare the shit out of me. The rate at which we are expanding simply makes the likelihood of accident, dependency, and raping the land, seem inevitable.

brianlux wrote:

What approaches to solutions or change do you think work best? Legislation? Coercion? Education? Do nothing? Others?

I gotta come back to this one…I think education is the key to where it starts though.

JonnyPistachio

oh, haha, to answer your main question, "where are we headed?"

I dunno, I sometimes get the feeling that there's nobody steering the ship these days.

brianlux

JonnyPistachio wrote:

oh, haha, to answer your main question, "where are we headed?"

I dunno, I sometimes get the feeling that there's nobody steering the ship these days.

The Raid Can analogy, is a good one, Jonny. I'm concerned that we might be our own Raid Can by our reckless disregard for ecological balance. We seem to think we can continue to take what we want from the planet at an unchecked rate without paying consequences.

As for steering the ship I think we have three types:
1. Reckless captains who drive only for the thrill of speed and personal gain in the moment.
2. Wide eyed pilots who are trying desperately to steer the ship clear of the cliff we are speeding toward and
3. I very large group of passengers trying their best to numb themselves with TV or drugs or alcohol or whatever in order to avoid looking at the danger.

hedonist

"tell the captain this boat's not safe and we're drowning...turns out he's the one making waves"

Could take that on a political lean (which I have), but, maybe, we're all captains?

Not passengers.

Ishmael was like a wonderful slap in the face for me - "WAKE UP!" - and its / Quinn's philosophy has a firm place in my life. Not every day, to be honest, but enough that my conscience is usually clear.

(wait till you get into his other books, Brian!)

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

"tell the captain this boat's not safe and we're drowning...turns out he's the one making waves"

Could take that on a political lean (which I have), but, maybe, we're all captains?

Not passengers.

Ishmael was like a wonderful slap in the face for me - "WAKE UP!" - and its / Quinn's philosophy has a firm place in my life. Not every day, to be honest, but enough that my conscience is usually clear.

(wait till you get into his other books, Brian!)

I was thinking that exact quote but it's been suggested we keep PJ on the porch. It really does fit here though.

Yeah, in a way we are all captains. At least we all play a tiny roll. No single one of us can steer the ship on course and perhaps even 10,000 of us won't make a difference but it only makes sense to me to try (as in the Vaclav Havel quote about hope).

(You we so right about Ishmael, Hedonist. I'll get to the others for sure!)

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

oh, haha, to answer your main question, "where are we headed?"

I dunno, I sometimes get the feeling that there's nobody steering the ship these days.

The Raid Can analogy, is a good one, Jonny. I'm concerned that we might be our own Raid Can by our reckless disregard for ecological balance. We seem to think we can continue to take what we want from the planet at an unchecked rate without paying consequences.

As for steering the ship I think we have three types:
1. Reckless captains who drive only for the thrill of speed and personal gain in the moment.
2. Wide eyed pilots who are trying desperately to steer the ship clear of the cliff we are speeding toward and
3. I very large group of passengers trying their best to numb themselves with TV or drugs or alcohol or whatever in order to avoid looking at the danger.

I just took my lunch break and took a drive by the beach. Its about 92 degrees out there I think, but I had to have my windows down to smell the salt air. Some reason I keep thinking back on this thread as my day goes on...likely its because I recently watched this film called 'The Road' and its quite a contrast to what most of us know as our day to day. --Spoiler alert-- In this movie The Road, something cataclysmic happens but the viewer never really learns what year it is or what happened. The movie is grey and sad with burnt out land and smoggy skies. All of it. It made me overly appreciative of what we have, and made me wonder if we will know when this cataclysmic event happens, or if it will creep up on us slowly. How slowly can we kill our planet?

I'm hoping we recognize what direction we're headed and we don't just wake up to a world of grey someday. Right now I think there is a bunch of boats out there with a even mess of your examples 1 through 3.

Education is key. And awareness. I live in a neighborhood that is fucking messy. I try to keep my lawn nice, but people constantly throw trash in my bushes. I finally realized that its mostly the high school students who walk past on their way to school. They just arent aware, and many just dont care. But at the same time, I saw a guy in his 40's in a suit, lean out of his BMW and toss a bag of lunch trash on the ground in the parking lot. I was so close to walking over and throwing it in his fucking window. People piss me off and sometimes I lose hope, but the key is the small amount of people who DO care, just cannot give up.

Jeanwah

Great topic, that book changed my outlook on life! I should probably pick it up again. Right after I read Gregg Allmann's biography.

I have to come back to this and gather my thoughts first.

I do think that the species will die off if we continue on the consumption treadmill we're currently on with capitalism guiding the way.

usamamasan1

one image from the story that has stuck with me is when Ismael speaks of someone who creates a flying bike or something like that. I think the bike that you pedal to make the wings flap is supposed to be our society.

when dude takes said bike and drives it off a cliff he starts "flying" faster and faster and thinks "damn, this bike is the shit". Problem is, the ground below is approaching faster and faster (imminent death). Dude is fucked though since the bike can't fly for shit, pedaling faster doesn't help.


or, something like that. great book. When I read it it seems to articualte my thoughts well.

brianlux

usamamasan1 wrote:

one image from the story that has stuck with me is when Ismael speaks of someone who creates a flying bike or something like that. I think the bike that you pedal to make the wings flap is supposed to be our society.

when dude takes said bike and drives it off a cliff he starts "flying" faster and faster and thinks "damn, this bike is the shit". Problem is, the ground below is approaching faster and faster (imminent death). Dude is fucked though since the bike can't fly for shit, pedaling faster doesn't help.


or, something like that. great book. When I read it it seems to articualte my thoughts well.

Yeah, I really liked that analogy too. It paints a pretty clear picture of where we seem to be heading- a crash landing. The book makes this very clear.

On the flip side, another thing I very much like about the book is this quote (possible SPOILER ALERT, this is from the end of the book):

"I think what you're groping for is that people need more than to be scolded , more than to be made to feel stupid and guilty. They need more than a vision of doom. They need a vision of the world and of themselves that inspires them."

brianlux

Jeanwah wrote:

Great topic, that book changed my outlook on life! I should probably pick it up again. Right after I read Gregg Allmann's biography.

I have to come back to this and gather my thoughts first.

I do think that the species will die off if we continue on the consumption treadmill we're currently on with capitalism guiding the way.

I know what you mean, Jeanwah. I have a feeling I'll be gathering my thoughts for quite awhile after reading Ishmael.

Thank you whoever it was that recommended this book to me. Thank you times infinity.

usamamasan1

http://www.readishmael.com/readishpearljam.html

peacefrompaul

I guess I have to read this one

riotgrl

I've ordered this book and can't wait to read it!

DriftingByTheStorm

I'll make this short (as possible, you know me).

I think the crux of the issue that Ishmael touches on (for me, and not explicitly in the book) is that the false dichotomy between "Economics" and "Environmentalism" must be BRIDGED.

I disagree with large swaths of the sentiment in Ishmael.
I don't think that leaving Hunter-Gatherer-Nomad "society" for Stationary-Agriculture "civilization" is\was the beginning of the end for the world.

I DO think technology must be embraced. Sentimentalism solves nothing and gets us nowhere. There is no going back. (also, neither here nor there, all the parts regarding "explanation" of the Bible, i'm not so sure of, either)

To expound on my primary point:
"ECONOMICS" and "ENVIRONMENTALISM" MUST BE ***BRIDGED***

Man (all of mankind) must steadily (and fairly immediately) start to transition the ENTIRE CIVILIZATION away from an "Economics" model that tries to embrace "Environmentalism" as an after thought.

There must be a path forward where man no longer is required to make choices in tandem like:

"I get this environmentally destructive crumby job making useless crap because it pays my bills"
followed immediately by
"I buy this Insert Product Here because it is environmentally friendly"

THIS is not the answer, is merely an illusion, and we will destroy the earth just as fast, if not faster if people think this is "sustainable".

The entire system needs reworked, and people more generally must come to understand that ALL their decisions\actions impact the natural environment and that these decisions must be thought of COLLECTIVELY via the patterns they bring about between the user (you) and the user's environment (the earth). If the PATTERNS OF USE\ACTION between man and his environment are not "sustainable" ON THE WHOLE, there can be no harmony between man and the environment, or arguably more importantly to the long term health of the world, between MAN AND MAN.

We live in a false\unsustainable dichotomy where man makes certain decisions based on economic incentives, and then tries to backstop the damage of those economic decisions by making "alternative" choices with regard to which "green" products\services he chooses. But this is self serving (makes you feel "good") and does little for the larger problems we face.

There must be SYSTEMIC change.
It must EMBRACE technology. and it must be
UNIVERSALLY adopted.

::Fingers Crossed For The Earliest Possible Arrival of the "New" New World Order::

brianlux

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I'll make this short (as possible, you know me).

I think the crux of the issue that Ishmael touches on (for me, and not explicitly in the book) is that the false dichotomy between "Economics" and "Environmentalism" must be BRIDGED.

I disagree with large swaths of the sentiment in Ishmael.
I don't think that leaving Hunter-Gatherer-Nomad "society" for Stationary-Agriculture "civilization" is\was the beginning of the end for the world.

I DO think technology must be embraced. Sentimentalism solves nothing and gets us nowhere. There is no going back. (also, neither here nor there, all the parts regarding "explanation" of the Bible, i'm not so sure of, either)

To expound on my primary point:
"ECONOMICS" and "ENVIRONMENTALISM" MUST BE ***BRIDGED***

Man (all of mankind) must steadily (and fairly immediately) start to transition the ENTIRE CIVILIZATION away from an "Economics" model that tries to embrace "Environmentalism" as an after thought.

There must be a path forward where man no longer is required to make choices in tandem like:

"I get this environmentally destructive crumby job making useless crap because it pays my bills"
followed immediately by
"I buy this Insert Product Here because it is environmentally friendly"

THIS is not the answer, is merely an illusion, and we will destroy the earth just as fast, if not faster if people think this is "sustainable".

The entire system needs reworked, and people more generally must come to understand that ALL their decisions\actions impact the natural environment and that these decisions must be thought of COLLECTIVELY via the patterns they bring about between the user (you) and the user's environment (the earth). If the PATTERNS OF USE\ACTION between man and his environment are not "sustainable" ON THE WHOLE, there can be no harmony between man and the environment, or arguably more importantly to the long term health of the world, between MAN AND MAN.

We live in a false\unsustainable dichotomy where man makes certain decisions based on economic incentives, and then tries to backstop the damage of those economic decisions by making "alternative" choices with regard to which "green" products\services he chooses. But this is self serving (makes you feel "good") and does little for the larger problems we face.

There must be SYSTEMIC change.
It must EMBRACE technology. and it must be
UNIVERSALLY adopted.

::Fingers Crossed For The Earliest Possible Arrival of the "New" New World Order::

Drifting, it sounds like some of what you are saying agrees with what I said here:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=13&p=4468584

Yes? No?

I suppose embracing technology might give us a chance but I personally wouldn't put my money on it. So far, the opposite seems to be the case.

Is not the idea of embracing technology antithetical to one of the basic premises of Ishmael which is that the supremacy of humans in this world is a myth? I think by continuing to see ourselves as bigger, better, and more important than the rest of the world we may end limiting our growth and our longevity as a species. We believe we are clever enough to live outside the balances of nature but I fear that may well end up being our undoing.

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

Drifting, it sounds like some of what you are saying agrees with what I said here:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=13&p=4468584

Yes? No?

I suppose embracing technology might give us a chance but I personally wouldn't put my money on it. So far, the opposite seems to be the case.

Is not the idea of embracing technology antithetical to one of the basic premises of Ishmael which is that the supremacy of humans in this world is a myth? I think by continuing to see ourselves as bigger, better, and more important than the rest of the world we may end limiting our growth and our longevity as a species. We believe we are clever enough to live outside the balances of nature but I fear that may well end up being our undoing.

We can either believe that evolution and the laws of nature apply to us or not, but the fact is they do. We adapt like any other species. We are just better at it in terms of successfully inhabiting many different climates and regions. No individual animal thinks about the longevity of their species. They pursue individual goals, which sometimes coincide with the benefits to the group. You better believe that if it was possible for the world to support 6 billion lions those things would be everywhere. We are animals like all the others...we just have the ability to adapt our surroundings to us in some ways. Which I guess is the way we adapt. We don't have natural predators to keep ourselves in check other than us, and every day our drive to stay alive brings us further along in medical technology and ways to live longer. So we cannot go backwards, that would cause wide spread human suffering. Much more than attempting to fix the problems we face through technology. nature has a way of stopping a species if it grows to large and imposing on the natural world...disease, famine, all sorts of techniques...and in order to bring us back to a naturally manageable level, something that out does our technological efforts will have to happen...

I don't know...I liked that book but it definitely has been a while since I have read it...think I will pick it up again today

Jeanwah

brianlux wrote:

I finished reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael today and felt like I'd found something I've been looking for for quite a long time- a book that put's a lot of the pieces together without sermonizing or giving away too much or pretending to offer "an incantation" or "a magic word that would sweep all the nastiness away".

I won't give the book away or suggest anyone has to read it to engage in this discussion (though suffice it to say I highly recommend the book) but what I will throw out here for discussion are a few things the book challenges us to ponder:

Will we change as a species, die off or remain the same?

I think that as long as we collectively don't recognize ourselves and all beings as equal, then we will die off at some point. One of the biggest things I got from the book was that we're all connected. This idea that our species is better than all the others will inevitably be the end. We can't just continue on course with nothing happening. We're consuming all of our resources, other species and land. If we devour the other species (or kill them off), we're not proving that we're superior, we're just creating a global imbalance. And that's already happening. Thanks to us. Obsession with money and consumption certainly is not cyclical. There will be a day when the new resources start to run out. And with that, capitalism will be in trouble.

Should we stay the course and hope for a last minute fix, become a hunter gather society in order avoid altering the environment such that large mammals including ours become extinct, or is there some other choice?

I do think going back to somewhat of a tribe mentality helps. Communal living is making a comeback in some areas. Not necessarily a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but living off the land, working with our natural surroundings and community living where we share goods rather than hoard, rather than fully rely on technology is the answer. We need to find a balance between both.

If someone you knew we're to choose a very simple, basic lifestyle such as hunter-gatherer/herders would you consider that "regressing"?

I've heard of it, it's a bit extreme in the western world, but whatever floats your boat. There are still some tribes in existence and I think that's amazing. Ishmael got me curious about that.

Can we continue to operate as a consumer species ("takers") and still somehow allow for a balance of nature and the ability for other forms of life to continue?

Sure. Respect, education, awareness, a higher conscience, taking care of each other within our species and others, and looking at things big picture rather than getting lost in details help.

What approaches to solutions or change do you think work best? Legislation? Coercion? Education? Do nothing? Others?

Good question. How do you get other people to care? Probably education and spreading awareness and books like Ishmael.

brianlux

Thanks everyone for good input.

Over the last few days, I read a number of reviews of Ishmael and most of them found several things about the book that were insightful. The other thing I ran across a number of time though was the idea that the book is a bit too naive, unrealistically optimistic or sentimental. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the temptation to say, "we're screwed". Obviously that is a good possibility, but it still makes sense to me to look for solutions and try to at least envision ourselves as being integral with nature rather than opposed to it. I found Quinn's book to be very useful that way. Hugely eye opening, really.

I also understand books like Derrick Jensen's excellent tome End Game the basic premise of which is that civilization must and will collapse. That's quite possible as well, but I don't see Jensen as being a pessimistic doomsayer. Quite the opposite.

Richard Manning also wrote a great book about the problems of civilization in his book, Against the Grain, and his book points the way toward some possible solutions.

What doesn't make sense to me is why anyone would not be at least interested in these ideas. Maybe the closer we get to slamming into the brick wall the more we want to avoid looking at it. I understand that too. I'm really good at escaping at times (i.e. Lounge Car time!) And maybe I'm the one who is overly sentimental or naive but I'm like my old man- a stubborn Dutchman (it's a bit of a misnomer - he's of Amish heritage)- I still believe "miracles" and "a better world for you and me".

riotgrl

brianlux wrote:

Thanks everyone for good input.

Over the last few days, I read a number of reviews of Ishmael and most of them found several things about the book that were insightful. The other thing I ran across a number of time though was the idea that the book is a bit too naive, unrealistically optimistic or sentimental. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the temptation to say, "we're screwed". Obviously that is a good possibility, but it still makes sense to me to look for solutions and try to at least envision ourselves as being integral with nature rather than opposed to it. I found Quinn's book to be very useful that way. Hugely eye opening, really.

I also understand books like Derrick Jensen's excellent tome End Game the basic premise of which is that civilization must and will collapse. That's quite possible as well, but I don't see Jensen as being a pessimistic doomsayer. Quite the opposite.

Richard Manning also wrote a great book about the problems of civilization in his book, Against the Grain, and his book points the way toward some possible solutions.

What doesn't make sense to me is why anyone would not be at least interested in these ideas. Maybe the closer we get to slamming into the brick wall the more we want to avoid looking at it. I understand that too. I'm really good at escaping at times (i.e. Lounge Car time!) And maybe I'm the one who is overly sentimental or naive but I'm like my old man- a stubborn Dutchman (it's a bit of a misnomer - he's of Amish heritage)- I still believe "miracles" and "a better world for you and me".

I just got the book today and am already about halfway through it. I really like what you've said here. In some ways, I feel very cynical but in other ways maybe a bit naive in that I believe that we can DO something. Sometimes I'm not sure what that IS but it sure beats sitting around crying about the problem or ignoring it altogether. I'll check back when I'm finished with the book but I'll leave you with this thought that my 9 year said tonight. She said there are too many people, too little food, and she doesn't think our future is very bright. Kinda of scary to think that my children already grasp that there is a problem and not sure if there is a solution. Hopefully, I can keep reading and keep discussing and help her realize that maybe there is a solution to at least some of our problems.

brianlux

riotgrl wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Thanks everyone for good input.

Over the last few days, I read a number of reviews of Ishmael and most of them found several things about the book that were insightful. The other thing I ran across a number of time though was the idea that the book is a bit too naive, unrealistically optimistic or sentimental. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the temptation to say, "we're screwed". Obviously that is a good possibility, but it still makes sense to me to look for solutions and try to at least envision ourselves as being integral with nature rather than opposed to it. I found Quinn's book to be very useful that way. Hugely eye opening, really.

I also understand books like Derrick Jensen's excellent tome End Game the basic premise of which is that civilization must and will collapse. That's quite possible as well, but I don't see Jensen as being a pessimistic doomsayer. Quite the opposite.

Richard Manning also wrote a great book about the problems of civilization in his book, Against the Grain, and his book points the way toward some possible solutions.

What doesn't make sense to me is why anyone would not be at least interested in these ideas. Maybe the closer we get to slamming into the brick wall the more we want to avoid looking at it. I understand that too. I'm really good at escaping at times (i.e. Lounge Car time!) And maybe I'm the one who is overly sentimental or naive but I'm like my old man- a stubborn Dutchman (it's a bit of a misnomer - he's of Amish heritage)- I still believe "miracles" and "a better world for you and me".

I just got the book today and am already about halfway through it. I really like what you've said here. In some ways, I feel very cynical but in other ways maybe a bit naive in that I believe that we can DO something. Sometimes I'm not sure what that IS but it sure beats sitting around crying about the problem or ignoring it altogether. I'll check back when I'm finished with the book but I'll leave you with this thought that my 9 year said tonight. She said there are too many people, too little food, and she doesn't think our future is very bright. Kinda of scary to think that my children already grasp that there is a problem and not sure if there is a solution. Hopefully, I can keep reading and keep discussing and help her realize that maybe there is a solution to at least some of our problems.

Well said, riotgrl. Maybe we should make Ishmael required reading in high school and give Catcher in the Rye a break. It's a good book too but I'm thinking Ishmael is more relevant these days. Your daughter is very perceptive and it's for kids like her and my nephews and grand nieces that we need to keep trying.

Thanks for excellent input!