Ishmael!

laudenum

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.

Brain of J.Lo

Blackeyedangel wrote:

I can already tell I would greatly detest this book.

Why's that?

I'm just curious.

AllNiteThing

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.

AllNiteThing

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.

laudenum

AllNiteThing wrote:

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

catefrances

AllNiteThing wrote:

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.

AllNiteThing

catefrances wrote:

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.

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.

catefrances

AllNiteThing wrote:

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.

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.

skyeriverwinter

.

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

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 . 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.

Heineken Helen

skyeriverwinter wrote:

thank you! with kids it's going to take me a few days.

You're not under any deadline here

callen

Heineken Helen wrote:

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

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.

HermanBloom

I just need to say a lot is two words

Heineken Helen

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 some kinda ironic legacy of our reign.

callen

Heineken Helen wrote:

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 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.

Heineken Helen

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 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

GreenTeaDisease

decides2dream wrote:

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.