Ishmael!

2»

Comments

  • dunkman wrote:
    you written many books then?




    ;)



    have you?

    are you of the belief that if you personally have not done the same one is not allowed to have a critical or informed opinion?


    if i HAD written a book and had it published, my work would be under the same scrutiny and rightly so. i do believe one gets PAID for writing books, and as any 'employment' one's work does get scrutinized...and as i have paid my own hard-earned money for said book....yes, i believe that allows me to have an opinion. hell, even if i borrowed the damn thing...when one put's their work out into the world...it is there to ben enjoyed, and absolutely, critiqued. like all artists......visual, musical, literary or otherwise.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


  • JuberooJuberoo Posts: 472
    good question... sorry for leaving you listening with anticipation for almost 8 hours... you must be STARVING :eek:

    Anyway, it DOES bring up a good point... and one that challenges everything I've always believed. I'm not quite sure. I think it's quite a conflicting thing to say though... because as 'takers' surely we wouldn't be overly willing to help out others? And, if you think about it, it's generally the wannabe LEAVERS who are more charitable.

    Hmm... it's quite interesting actually. One I'll have to consider further. How about you Jubaroo? What do you think about it?
    I think it is absurd. We have come too far as a species to ignore simple solutions. The earth is meant to be filled. It is a large planet. It has a purpose. We are not a species that lives by an inherent "survival of the fittest". We are a species that thinks, solves and is connected. Feeding people in less fruitfull areas is not the problem. Society's breakdown is.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo wrote:
    I think it is absurd. We have come too far as a species to ignore simple solutions. The earth is meant to be filled. It is a large planet. It has a purpose. We are not a species that lives by an inherent "survival of the fittest". We are a species that thinks, solves and is connected. Feeding people in less fruitfull areas is not the problem. Society's breakdown is.
    :confused: the earth is meant to be filled? And you think the earths purpose is for US to fill it? hence you follow the belief that the world, the universe and everything in it was 'created'/'evolved'/whatever for us?

    So how is society's breakdown as you put it the problem? And what solution do YOU suggest?
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • Juberoo wrote:
    I think it is absurd. We have come too far as a species to ignore simple solutions. The earth is meant to be filled.

    Not by human mass it's not. The earth has the ability to sustain a varied, diverse cross section of life. The composite earth ecosystem cannot support JUST humans just as it cannot support JUST sharks or JUST bees. To say the earth is meant to filled is quite arbitrary, but if you mean the earth is meant to be filled with humans (or human mass), then I strongly disagree.
    Juberoo wrote:
    It is a large planet. It has a purpose.

    What (divine?) purpose may that be???

    Juberoo wrote:
    We are not a species that lives by an inherent "survival of the fittest". We are a species that thinks, solves and is connected. Feeding people in less fruitfull areas is not the problem.

    I think for the greater part of our existence and evolution, a couple million years at least, we DID live by the survival of the fittest. I think we have also always used thinking and problem solving as tools to survive. That and mother nature's survival of the fittest aren't mutually exclusive as you try to make them out to be. Part of what made us unique was our problem solving. Hell, that's the only thing that could give us a leg up in hunting woolly mammoths and the like back in the day. It was the 'taker' culture developed in Mesopotamia that violently overtook the tribal ones of the day (and presently). It is this culture, which Quinn says, that will eventually lead to our species' extinction. It is unfit and unhealthy within our ecosystem. Tribal society was what worked and had worked for hundreds of thousands of years.

    Juberoo wrote:
    Society's breakdown is.

    Please explain further.
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • :confused: the earth is meant to be filled? And you think the earths purpose is for US to fill it? hence you follow the belief that the world, the universe and everything in it was 'created'/'evolved'/whatever for us?

    So how is society's breakdown as you put it the problem? And what solution do YOU suggest?


    Beat me to it. :)
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • might i suggest that if quinn is so concerned about unsustainable population growth that he stop eating right now.


    That doesn't make sense (not sure if you're serious here). What you should say is that he shouldn't have any children, at least not more than two so as not to contribute to the problem.
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    have you?

    are you of the belief that if you personally have not done the same one is not allowed to have a critical or informed opinion?


    if i HAD written a book and had it published, my work would be under the same scrutiny and rightly so. i do believe one gets PAID for writing books, and as any 'employment' one's work does get scrutinized...and as i have paid my own hard-earned money for said book....yes, i believe that allows me to have an opinion. hell, even if i borrowed the damn thing...when one put's their work out into the world...it is there to ben enjoyed, and absolutely, critiqued. like all artists......visual, musical, literary or otherwise.


    the work you do gets scrutinised by your employers does it not.. peers, people with similar skills and experience? not say a shoe salesmen or chemist.

    i.e. it wouldnt be right for me to scrutinise the work of a nano-technologist, but i agree it would be ok for his colleagues to do so.

    i get what your saying though, i really do


    p.s. i've written 9 books... all of them are filthy and lewd.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkman wrote:
    the work you do gets scrutinised by your employers does it not.. peers, people with similar skills and experience? not say a shoe salesmen or chemist.

    i.e. it wouldnt be right for me to scrutinise the work of a nano-technologist, but i agree it would be ok for his colleagues to do so.

    i get what your saying though, i really do


    p.s. i've written 9 books... all of them are filthy and lewd.
    and crap more than likely :p
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • dunkman wrote:
    the work you do gets scrutinised by your employers does it not.. peers, people with similar skills and experience? not say a shoe salesmen or chemist.

    i.e. it wouldnt be right for me to scrutinise the work of a nano-technologist, but i agree it would be ok for his colleagues to do so.

    i get what your saying though, i really do


    p.s. i've written 9 books... all of them are filthy and lewd.


    sure. although none the less, when diswcussing the arts...they DO get scrutinized, and again, rightly so...by their 'audience.' paintins, drawings, photographs, music, films, theatre...and on and on....ALL get srutinized/critiqued by their audience/general public who choose to view/listen. some may be more knowledgeable than others to offer said critiques, but none the less, each and evry one of us have a right to an opinion...and the right to express this opinion.

    i do find it interesting that you of all people make such comments, b/c i do know how much you so enjoy to 'critique' a certain place and it's people....with sure, lots of general knowledge, but none firsthand. ;) hehehe.


    point being, we ALL have that right. we also have the right to disregard and/or disagree with others' opinions as well.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


  • I can already tell I would greatly detest this book.
  • Juberoo wrote:
    Helen I'm curious what you thought about Daniel Quinn's well voiced opinion that we shouldn't be offering aid to food impoverished countries because we are just holding off the inevitable. He feels that if we let these cultures die out naturally from starvation, we will help the earth recover quicker from the damage mankind does to it.

    I'm listening with anticipation for your response.
    where does he say this? ive seen him speak. all he says is that is theres more food? people will breed more. if however, he uses an example of if you have
    4 mice,and only enough food for 4 mice,their population will remain steady.
    if they have an unlimited supply of food,you will have an unlimited supply of mice.
    it isnt really 3 world nations that are the problem, the usa has more of an increase in populaion.
    "shes stoned said the swede, and the
    mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
  • I can already tell I would greatly detest this book.

    Why's that?

    I'm just curious.
  • laudenum wrote:
    where does he say this? ive seen him speak. all he says is that is theres more food? people will breed more. if however, he uses an example of if you have
    4 mice,and only enough food for 4 mice,their population will remain steady.
    if they have an unlimited supply of food,you will have an unlimited supply of mice.
    it isnt really 3 world nations that are the problem, the usa has more of an increase in populaion.

    Actually 3rd world country populations are exploding, while ours are starting to hold relatively steady.

    The way I see it is that many of these 3rd world countries can only hold so many people (food wise/agriculturally). They lived tribally off the land just fine until they were colonized. Europe turned the people of these nations into living the same way that we do. These people go away from what their ancestors did to survive, but they neither have the resources, the know how nor the power to live as Europeans do/did. Also they try to 'keep up' with the rest of the world by increasing their population, but this furthers the problem.

    DQ says that instead of trying to feed all the hungry people you see on tv, let nature take its course. They shouldn't have been forced into cities and forced into 'western' agricultural methods and encouraged to reproduce to work the land. Once Western imperialism left, these methods and the financed backing it up collapsed. They were just find in tribes, living off the land and by Mother Nature's rules. Trying to keep this failing system going by feeding into the problem only makes it worse and fans the flames. DQ is right on with the new minds w/new ideas approach.
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • laudenum wrote:
    where does he say this? ive seen him speak. all he says is that is theres more food? people will breed more. if however, he uses an example of if you have
    4 mice,and only enough food for 4 mice,their population will remain steady.
    if they have an unlimited supply of food,you will have an unlimited supply of mice.
    it isnt really 3 world nations that are the problem, the usa has more of an increase in populaion.


    Also, read 'Beyond Civilization'. He takes many of the themes of his earlier books and offers solutions/approaches to dealing with the problems. I think he really goes into the population issue there. Story of B does too I believe. Unfortunately too many people are looking to be spoon fed these solutions. The point of his work is to get you to think about these issues in a way you never have before, and hopefully use your brain power to come up with new ideas.
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • Also, read 'Beyond Civilization'. He takes many of the themes of his earlier books and offers solutions/approaches to dealing with the problems. I think he really goes into the population issue there. Story of B does too I believe. Unfortunately too many people are looking to be spoon fed these solutions. The point of his work is to get you to think about these issues in a way you never have before, and hopefully use your brain power to come up with new ideas.
    i agree with his ideas.
    however the distrabutuion of wealth controls the who gets food and who does not.
    seems like a very cruel way for a species to teat its own
    "shes stoned said the swede, and the
    mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 28,899
    That doesn't make sense (not sure if you're serious here). What you should say is that he shouldn't have any children, at least not more than two so as not to contribute to the problem.

    oh no i know exacty what it is i'm saying. here you have a man in a position of privilege purely through accident of birth telling us that the solution to the world's overpopulation problem is to stop 'propping' up those lands that can not sustain that population. how hypocritical of you to suggest on one hand that quinn shouldn't have children but if he were, he should at least limit his procreation to just two offspring. any addition to the world's population is adding to the problem.

    personally i do not believe the problem is over population. i see it more as a management problem on a global scale. we have a situation where trade is global but our compassion for our fellow man doesn't much get beyond our own families. for better or for worse we are ALL in this together. solutions need to be found. to deny existence to people less fortunate than ourselves when we have the means and ability to improve them, is abhorrant.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • oh no i know exacty what it is i'm saying. here you have a man in a position of privilege purely through accident of birth telling us that the solution to the world's overpopulation problem is to stop 'propping' up those lands that can not sustain that population. how hypocritical of you to suggest on one hand that quinn shouldn't have children but if he were, he should at least limit his procreation to just two offspring. any addition to the world's population is adding to the problem.

    personally i do not believe the problem is over population. i see it more as a management problem on a global scale. we have a situation where trade is global but our compassion for our fellow man doesn't much get beyond our own families. for better or for worse we are ALL in this together. solutions need to be found. to deny existence to people less fortunate than ourselves when we have the means and ability to improve them, is abhorrant.

    In what way is it hypocritical what I said about Quinn? YOU said he is the problem, not I. My point was that population is a problem, and if he wants to fix it, then he should start by not having children. That would be a positive affect on the problem. Having 2 children would have a 0 net affect on the problem. I don't see how pointing those two things out is hypocritical in the least. Maybe you're just looking for a fight. :confused:

    Anyway, Quinn tries to make the point that what may seem abhorrent isn't the issue. It's not about good and evil or compassion on an individual level. He tries to get us looking big picture, what is good for our species' survival. Sure it's great to send food to Sally Struthers' poster children and give money to unstable populations who are exploding out of control, because we feel bad. But eventually it will be a powder keg that will lead to MORE starvation, MORE death, MORE disease and MORE pollution. I agree that the 'west' is greedy and we have all the wealth and show little compassion to those less fortunate. I agree that we are where we are because we take advantage of these people. However, Quinn has a point in that solving this problem will take different ways of thinking, not aiding the population explosion and aiding the growth of peoples in lands that can't support them otherwise.
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 28,899
    In what way is it hypocritical what I said about Quinn? YOU said he is the problem, not I. My point was that population is a problem, and if he wants to fix it, then he should start by not having children. That would be a positive affect on the problem. Having 2 children would have a 0 net affect on the problem. I don't see how pointing those two things out is hypocritical in the least. Maybe you're just looking for a fight. :confused:

    Anyway, Quinn tries to make the point that what may seem abhorrent isn't the issue. It's not about good and evil or compassion on an individual level. He tries to get us looking big picture, what is good for our species' survival. Sure it's great to send food to Sally Struthers' poster children and give money to unstable populations who are exploding out of control, because we feel bad. But eventually it will be a powder keg that will lead to MORE starvation, MORE death, MORE disease and MORE pollution. I agree that the 'west' is greedy and we have all the wealth and show little compassion to those less fortunate. I agree that we are where we are because we take advantage of these people. However, Quinn has a point in that solving this problem will take different ways of thinking, not aiding the population explosion and aiding the growth of peoples in lands that can't support them otherwise.


    oh no trust me, you'll know when i'm looking for a fight. :)

    perhaps hypocrite was the wrong choice of word. i apologise for that. however i still do not see how on one hand you can suggest quinn have no children, and then say but if he did, then he should have only 2.

    yes i get what quinn is saying and i stand by my assertion that if he truly believed what he said then he would just stop being a burden. that way the issue of how many offspring he had would be irrelevant.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • skyeriverwinterskyeriverwinter Posts: 1,875
    edited October 2010
    .
    Post edited by skyeriverwinter on

  • personally i do not believe the problem is over population. i see it more as a management problem on a global scale. we have a situation where trade is global but our compassion for our fellow man doesn't much get beyond our own families. for better or for worse we are ALL in this together. solutions need to be found. to deny existence to people less fortunate than ourselves when we have the means and ability to improve them, is abhorrant.
    Strangely I've learned more from the book I've just finished... which doesn't advertise in advance that it's going to change your life :D . It's about a Scottish guy fed up with life who leaves his family goes to live in the Alaskan wilderness for a year... he does it properly though and befriends a native family and pretty much only with their help, he survives the winter. They give him tools, food, dogs, EVERYTHING he needs... and when he offers them money in return, they look at him like he's crazy. It's natural in their way of life to help eachother as much as possible.
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • thank you! with kids it's going to take me a few days.
    :) You're not under any deadline here :p
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    yep, he certainly doesn't offer up any solutions whatsoever.

    I said in another thread though that the main comforting part for me was when it said something about when man's gone the earth can begin to rebuild itself... makes me think maybe we should speed up our extinction process rather than slowing it down :o
    sorry...I know this is really late...but after reading this book I did the ole search thingy and came up to this thread....

    The solution was the main point of the book.....we're not exempt from evolution....evolution doesn't stop at the Jelly Fish or at the Human but keeps going...and if we don't change our taker ways...we'll simply cause our own demise...but the world will continue...will continue to evolve.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • HermanBloomHermanBloom Posts: 1,764
    I just need to say a lot is two words
    SLC 11/2/95, Park City 6/21/98, Boise 11/3/00, Seattle 12/9/02, Vancouver 5/30/03, Gorge 9/1/05, Vancouver 9/2/05, Gorge 7/22/06, Gorge 7/23/06, Camden I 6/19/08, MSG I 6/24/08, MSG II 6/25/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield II 6/30/08; Eddie Albany 6/8/09, 6/9/09; Philly 10/30/09, 10/31/09; Boston 5/17/10
    I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
  • callen wrote:
    sorry...I know this is really late...but after reading this book I did the ole search thingy and came up to this thread....

    The solution was the main point of the book.....we're not exempt from evolution....evolution doesn't stop at the Jelly Fish or at the Human but keeps going...and if we don't change our taker ways...we'll simply cause our own demise...but the world will continue...will continue to evolve.
    I wonder how many times humans have destroyed their surroundings through our recklessness? I mean, there are so many extinct ancient civilisations that we know nothing about and it kinda makes me wonder. I reckon the only thing left will be the cockroach :o some kinda ironic legacy of our reign.
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    I wonder how many times humans have destroyed their surroundings through our recklessness? I mean, there are so many extinct ancient civilisations that we know nothing about and it kinda makes me wonder. I reckon the only thing left will be the cockroach :o some kinda ironic legacy of our reign.
    I always liken our current path to those that lived on Easter Island...we'll eventually wipe this planet clean....die and it will all start over again. I've pretty much just accepted this outcome.....course I still get frustrated as seeing all the beutiful creatures evolutions provided to be wiped out in such a short time period....oh well..they'll be back..and unfortunately another dominant species will as well....."Its Evolution Baby".

    Enjoy your trip to Amsterdam...been twice..and absulutely loved it...was much needed after living in the repressive police state of Texas. Oh and not only do you have to watch out for bikes..but cars and trains as well...can be quite a challenge..especially if you've enjoyed the local fare.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • callen wrote:
    I always liken our current path to those that lived on Easter Island...we'll eventually wipe this planet clean....die and it will all start over again. I've pretty much just accepted this outcome.....course I still get frustrated as seeing all the beutiful creatures evolutions provided to be wiped out in such a short time period....oh well..they'll be back..and unfortunately another dominant species will as well....."Its Evolution Baby".

    Enjoy your trip to Amsterdam...been twice..and absulutely loved it...was much needed after living in the repressive police state of Texas. Oh and not only do you have to watch out for bikes..but cars and trains as well...can be quite a challenge..especially if you've enjoyed the local fare.
    :eek: lotsa things to look out for :D thank you though.

    I think the thing about Ishmael was that it kinda calmed me down about a lot of things and made me think... well it's kinda inevitable :o
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • honestly, that book was so hyped and i just don't get it. while it was semi-interesting how the story was told...there really was no 'new' information in there presented, at least to me...so i honestly don't get all the hoopla. i've read far more compelling work, and certainly better written. however, if the book opens the eyes of some who have not thought of such things, makes such ideas more accessible...well then it serves a purpose.

    :)

    I have to say I had the same opinion of it.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.