The Electric Commentary

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Books That I Hate: Ishmael

You will frequently run across Daniel Quinn's Ishmael in your more progressive college courses. I was introduced to the book by some friends in Chicago. They were big fans.

Do you remember that Celestine Prophecy nonsense of 10 years ago? This is fairly similar, except where "Celestine" is now widely regarded as new-age bullshit, "Ishmael" still holds on to some level of philosophical credibility.

Let's deal with the credibility thing first. "Ishmael" has maintained a certain progressive following largely because it deals with protecting the environment. While I am all for protecting the environment (in fact I'm more in favor of it than Daniel Quinn, we'll get to that later) "Ishmael" takes a fairly hard line stance on the subject. But over-the-top environmentalism is not what makes "Ishmael" so stupid, so ridiculous, so amazingly inept. After all, you could at least make the case that an enormous conservation effort should be pursued based on available environmental science. I would not make this case, but someone could plausibly do so.

What makes "Ishmael" such a bad book is that it relies not on logic, but on argument from authority. And who is this authority, you ask? Newton? Einstein?

Nope.

It's a psychic gorilla. Named Ishmael. He rented out an apartment and posted an ad in the paper looking for someone who "wants to save the world."

My friends tell me that this is simply a plot device, but it can't be. There is no other reason to pay attention to the ramblings of Mr. Quinn, except for the fact that they are being spewed forth from the mind of a psychic gorilla.

Ishmael makes the following analogy in order to impress upon his student the necessity of changing our evil, selfish ways: (Paraphrased. I'm not touching this book again.)

Mankind is like someone who is falling from a very high cliff. From this person's perspective everything looks fine. The scenery changes only slightly, that is until you get a few thousand feet from the ground at which point it becomes glaringly obvious that there is a problem, and you can't do anything about it.


That's it. No evidence that this reflects our current situation is offered, Quinn simply makes the assertion. He also praises the "natural world" method of distributing scarce resources. This method involves a lot of fighting, starvation, a serious decline in population, and a complete abandonment of technology. He discusses a predator and its prey, and says that in the natural world, sometimes the prey will escape, sometimes the predator will eat, but it is up to the gods to decide who wins on a given day. This is good. No one gets too much and no one wastes resources.

And of course, the student in the book believes every word from the psychic gorilla without question, because it's tough to argue with the 400 pound gorilla in the room. Especially if he happens to be psychic.

It is shocking how many people are taken in by this book. The worldview that Quinn advocates is despicable. It is filled with death and suffering, and brings progress to a standstill. It is nothing more than the typical leftist romanticism of the state of nature. Quinn wants to protect all of nature except for humanity. He is a self-loathing human.

There is also ample evidence available to indicate that Ishmael himself isn't too bright. When we meet him his living conditions are lackluster. Rather than utilizing his talents to better his own situation, which would allow him to spread his message with greater efficiency, he is content to live in hiding and in poor health. Assuming he does have something worthwhile to say, he chooses a very poor method for saying it. A method that all but ensures that no one will hear it.

So, don't read Ishmael under any circumstances. It's truly terrible. I ran into someone reading it on the train the other day while I was reading Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness (on Danny's recommendation). He told me that reading "Ishmael" would do more to make me happy than any self-help book (note that Gilbert's book is anything but a self-help book). This happens to me with some regularity on the train. For some reason people like to tell me about Ishmael. I asked him why it made him happy and he replied that he now had a better understanding of how people are affecting things. I told him that I had read Ishmael and that I didn't believe that Quinn had any understanding of how people are affecting things and that if he did he wouldn't need to use a psychic gorilla as a proxy.

(Note: I should mention that when discussing "Ishmael" you should always say "psychic gorilla" and never "psychic monkey." Even though "psychic monkey" sounds funnier, "Ishmael" defenders will quickly and snottily correct you on this point, as if it matters.)

He then advised me to "look at the world around me and see what's going on."

He then disembarked from an electrical train in one of the nation's largest cities amidst skyscrapers and magnificent works of public art, where coffee and giant burritos are plentiful, violence is minimal, and modern forced air heating is keeping hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise be miserable or dead at a balmy 74 degrees.

As usual, the world looks pretty nice to me. And best of all, no psychic gorillas.

I wish that Julian Simon would have answered Ishmael's advertisement and put an end to this nonsense.

Labels:

30 Comments:

  • Great post. Nature sucks. Yeah Technology!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:39 PM  

  • The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.

    The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

    Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
    Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
    Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
    Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.


    Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

    If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

    Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.


    When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

    There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

    People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

    Emotion ends.

    Man becomes machine.



    A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

    A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

    A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.



    Fast visuals/ words make slow emotions extinct.

    Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys emotional circuits.

    A fast (large) society cannot feel pain / remorse / empathy.

    A fast (large) society will always be cruel to Animals/ Trees/ Air/ Water/ Land and to Itself.



    To read the complete article please follow either of these links :

    PlanetSave

    EarthNewsWire

    sushil_yadav

    By Blogger sushil yadav, at 11:03 PM  

  • See, that's the kind of crap that reading Ishmael can lead to. This guy is against thinking. At least he's not a hypocrite.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 7:56 AM  

  • Will "Books I Hate" be a regular feature?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:27 PM  

  • Probably yes. Next up will probably be Life of Pi.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 4:07 PM  

  • wow are you serious, i guess the fact that the populations teetering over the edge and that mass extinictions are occuring all the time doesnt mean anything well when its only dogs cats and people i guess you'll be in your happy place

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:48 PM  

  • Yes, cowardly anonymous guy, I am serious. There is no support for the idea that there are two many people. (In fact, those places with higher population density tend to be better off, not worse off.)

    Also, we don't really wipe out that many species compared to what would be wiped out by nature. (Nature wipes out species all the time. Nature kinda sucks in that regard. Evolution is basically a bit slaughterhouse.)

    Besides all that, Ishmael just makes shitty arguments. There are some good arguments to be made regarding environmentalism, but letting the gods decide who gets to starve today isn't one of them.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 9:15 AM  

  • "Also, we don't really wipe out that many species compared to what would be wiped out by nature. (Nature wipes out species all the time. Nature kinda sucks in that regard. Evolution is basically a bit slaughterhouse.)"

    There's a name for all this: DENIAL. The current extinction rate is (being conservative) ten times greater than natural extinction rate. You can go to wikipedia and find more information under "extinction":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

    And you can also check the following article if you need more scientific evidence from respected biologists:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-13344-Wildlife-Conservation-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Earth-experiencing-sixth-great-mass-extinction-this-one-may-be-caused-by-humans

    Nature doesn't suck, you do. We came being homo sapiens following the laws of life described in Ishmael, not eating burritos, riding electrical trains or living in skyscrapers.

    You are living in a fantasy bubble boy.

    By Blogger Joel, at 10:38 AM  

  • I live in a fantasy because humans are awesome and can build cool skyscrapers and ipods (and internets) and shit.

    The way we came to be humans was a terrible, brutal, painful, fearful, near starvation, subsistence level existence. Wanting to return to that because a talking gorilla tells you to is madness of the highest order.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 11:25 AM  

  • First of all, you say nothing about the extinction facts I gave you.
    Daniel Quinn does not say humans aren't awesome, neither he states that we need to be brutal, terrible, painful, fearful, and all those preconceived ideas of yours about tribal life.
    He doesn't say science is bad, art is bad, technology is bad, and so on.
    He is just pointing out WHY people need to be connected to their local resources and depend upon them, just like any other specie.
    Tribal life is the only way we humans know that can pull that off. We need to use it as a good example to create a sustainable way of life for all humans.
    To keep living this way (our civilization) is to deny future generations the possibility to exist.

    If you read Ishmael and think that the author is telling us to live in the caves and forget it all your reading ability and common sense are extremely poor.

    By Blogger Joel, at 12:01 PM  

  • To live Quinn's way is to make life not worth living.

    He IS telling us to live in caves, he's just trying to make it sound better than it really is by using nature worship.

    Try taking an economics class.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 12:50 PM  

  • You try taking an evolutionary biology class instead. You keep ignoring the importance of biodiversity and the extinction facts I gave you.

    Even if all humans were rich and happy with our civilization (which is very far from being the actual case) we still eat plants and animals. Massive extinction is dismantling the living community network that supports us. You can't eat your dollars kid, and cannibalism ends in self consumption.

    It's not nature worship, is common sense and not wanting to dissapear from the planet in a hundred years.

    And a change it's going to happen, have no doubt about it. The question it's more about how we want to go thru it and how prepared we can be than anything else.

    You really missed the whole point of the book just feeling fingered and unease with a part of reality you don't really care about and you don't like to be reminded of.

    Oddly enough you sound much more primitive having those lazy and visceral responses to valid and intelligent arguments from Mr. Quinn.

    Your disconnection with the outside from your confortable bubble part of the world is really scary. You have no idea what's going on.

    Living in a country that has best access to global information it doesn't speak very well from you either.

    By Blogger Joel, at 2:47 PM  

  • Do you know who Paul Ehrlich is?

    How about Julian Simon?

    People have believed the planet is going hell forever. They are always wrong. Quinn doesn't add any new facts and so we can only conclude that he is also wrong.

    Your Wikipedia link is cute.

    Where do you think species are most at risk, around highly developed societies, or around tribal societies?

    I'm too old to be a kid, sonny.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 4:33 PM  

  • Julian Simon was a professor of business administration. He had no idea about basic biologic concepts as carrying capacity or biodiversity. That's the problem with economists, they always think earth and life systems are endless.

    Paul Ehrlich was a biologist. Here it's a nice quotation of something he said in 2004:

    "When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion people. Since then we've added another 2.8 billion -- many more than the total population (2 billion) when I was born in 1932. If that's not a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was a major problem. Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year. My view has become depressingly mainline"

    So what's your point?

    Homo sapiens lived 300,000 years tribally. If species were most at risk around them, we wouldn't be here boy (i'm sorry but you think and write like one).

    If you honestly think we can last 300,000 years in this planet living like this then there's nothing else to discuss. It's either stupid or cynical not to recongnize the damage we have done to our home in just a couple of thousand years.

    Living is easy with eyes closed.

    By Blogger Joel, at 5:16 PM  

  • Simon was right, of course. You neglected to mention that.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 5:29 PM  

  • And of course, you do understand that the most technologically sound places in the world (Western Europe, the US, and the richer parts of Asia) have all seen falling birthrates, right?

    I'll probably start talking to you since you went the insult route, and really, it's pointless since now we're talking past each other, but just note that if you don't like my writing, I assumed you were in middle school, so I was just trying to make things easy on you.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 5:53 PM  

  • If a stupid bet between an economist and a biologist about the price of metals in a ten years period is all you have to defend losing a specie every 20 minutes, nuclear waste, atomic weapons, machine guns, massive famine, drug addiction, slavery, mental illness, pornography, junk food and all those wonderful things our civilization has, then it's fine, I'have nothing else to talk to you.

    It doesn't matter if developed countries birthrates are falling, food production is always raising and more food means more people somwhere else. Even if birthrates stop raising exponentially the actual amount of people requires such a tremendous biomass consumption that leaves little room for other species.

    We don't eat rocks, we eats animals and plants and depend on them, and if they depend on biodiversity, we also. That's a fact and it has nothing to do with metal prices.

    Simon won because fiber optics appeared and metals demand decreased. But there is no replacement for food, we will always eat animals or plants.

    By Blogger Joel, at 10:17 AM  

  • Paul,

    I must agree with you. Environmentalism and Ishmaelism are two different things. I am an environmentalist, however I do not consider humanity a cancer or global pariah. Evolution has allowed us to command the top of the food chain. We earned it. However, as spidey would say, "With great power, comes great responsibility". Daniel Quinn's answer in Ishmael is one our world cannot possibly attempt even if it wanted to and, I must add, I would not want to.

    The problem here is guilt, he wants to blame humanity for destroying the earth and we want to buy into the idea because we feel guilty. So, in his opinion, we should all throw out every human advancement and enlightened thought of the past 6000 years.

    I suggest that we should instead progress through science and technology to a place where those technologies make it easier for us to take care of each other, the planet and other planets as well.

    Every one of these self loathing books leaves out all the beautiful leaps in art, math, and science we have created and trades them in for nuclear war, pollution and terrorism.

    Ask an antelope who the terrorist is and, if he could answer like a psychic gorilla, he would say the cheetah. Nice. i prefer my spot on top and just hope I can in some small way assist in an effort to make the world we have a better place for humans and the plant and animal kingdom through science.

    By Blogger Bruce Hubbert, at 6:41 PM  

  • Hi, fellow hater of Ishmael. I am a high school student forced to read this pitiful excuse for a book in my AP Environmental Science class. And I'm the only one in the entire class who doesn't worship the book.

    Does no one else see the points you've brilliantly made? It's so obvious: our idiotic narrator is insane and he's imagining a talking gorilla that's spurring him on to new, dangerous heights. This is crazy.

    Don't get me wrong, I do think we humans are destroying the environment, and that is wrong, but there are better ways to get that point across than with a psychic gorilla.

    Why does everyone love this book? I don't get it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:51 AM  

  • I completely agree!! I have to read this book for 11th grade literature, and I think it is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Was Quinn high?! I'm sorry, but I cannot take you seriously if you start off your book with a talking/psychic gorilla that is extremely intelligent and seems to have an education. There is no way a monkey would know any of this stuff and be able to tell it to you....Plus, putting stupid analogies and metaphors in every paragraph gets annoying. My teachers said it was the most liked book of all the books that Juniors AND Seniors have to read in high school. I don't see how that is possible...It's just a bunch of blah blah blah and blabble. It goes on and on about the same ideas. I remember in the beginning it mentioned that the narrator was once a hippie when he was younger....Maybe the narrator was high...That would actually explain so much...I just don't get the book at all, and I hate it. We are not even half way done with it, and I wish it were over.

    By Blogger courtneyM17, at 12:43 AM  

  • I hated Ishmael. I took Humanities in my high school for the vain hope that we might discuss something like Welcome to the NHK! or Tales of Mere Existence. Instead, I get this crap.

    Ishmael: I am telling you a lot of bullshitty things in an omniscient manner. Some of my points about the environment are good, but most of it is bullshit about the "cage" we live in, bullshit about how humans are unnatural (is a beaver dam unnatural?), and bullshit about how we ought to live in the hands of the gods (by chance rather than intelligence).

    Snotty high school kid: I am so intelligent for understanding these brilliant (bullshitty) ideas! It all makes sense now! Now I am going to go read (some classic) because I ACTUALLY ENJOY this stuff! And no, I'm not being snobby at all!

    Me, the lonely high school kid: You know what? If you really want to know about the "cage" we live in, read Welcome to the NHK!, or watch Tales of Mere Existence! Stop pretending you care, because you've never even said hi to me for the past 10 years! I feel so goddamn lonely!

    Welcome to the NHK! (the manga) and Tales of Mere Existence are great by the way. They really get to the essence of life, instead of treating you like a kid and telling you to go save the environment. Also, I believe that the environment needs saving; I just don't like Ishmael.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:58 PM  

  • so sad. so utterly sad people use such fault logic to deny such incredible messages in such well-woven books. so sad.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:53 PM  

  • Quinn's books are full of wrong information and self contradiction. He states that the "Leaver Culture" does not look to gods, aliens or etc for answers to where their culture is going and how one should behave, but what about cargo cults, shamans and other forms of native magic. His books play into what Anthropologist call the fallacy of noble-savage: that at one time there were, or still is populations that live in perfect balance, this is not true, all extent cultures live in some sort of balance with their respective ecosystem, but a perfect culture that had all the answers never existed. Quinn has some good points, but the errors in his thinking makes the book nonsense. The noble-savage only existed in 1920's films. Our way of life has flaws and I agree that food should not be kept from those in need, but he does not even account for the era of horticulture and jumps directly to agriculture. It is just a misinformed preachy mess.

    By Blogger folkway, at 10:20 AM  

  • Thank you for your perspective I'm writing a paper on why I believe Quinn is wrong ... I will not be using your blog as a reference, however I loved the arguments you made!

    By Anonymous Dyme, at 11:46 PM  

  • His views are stated from the gorilla intending for the fact that an all knowing psychic gorilla giving will come across as ridiculous. He does this to keep people like you from taking the book so seriously so when Ishmael speaks your reminded it's just a book. If you dint agree with his views fine but don't tell us the fact the gorilla is talking is argument that he's crazy because he did it on purpose so YOU wouldn't get so worked up over the advice he gives

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:41 AM  

  • The thing that irks me the most about this books fan base is that they treat it as a call to save the world, not realizing that attitude is literally a different version of the "man over nature" framework the book so bluntly attacked.

    I also found the noble savage attitude offensive.

    I do think it has some value as accessible deconstruction-ist exercise. Examination of cultural assumptions is valuable regardless of the problems with the stimulus.

    By OpenID formidablefaux, at 11:39 AM  

  • I've never shaken my head so often in a comment section, and I occasionally torture myself with Youtube comments.

    Since he wrote the book, Quinn has just as often had to come out and remind people what he DIDN'T say as much as what he IS saying. He has said time and again it's absolute absurdity to expect us to live in caves (of course it is). Time and again he expresses his love of the great comforts civilization affords. This doesn't make him a hypocrite, this makes him just as much a prisoner of the system as everyone else in it. His job, as he's identified it for himself, has been to show people that there IS a prison. He has admitted he has very few ideas indeed of how to break everyone out of it. But the quickest route to begin that process is by changing minds (another tenant of all his books: GO CHANGE MINDS)

    Also, many of you must have missed the part where he takes on the myth that our culture is the entirety of humanity and other cultures (tribal ones) either don't matter or are just way behind. The point there being it's not humanity that is destroying the earth. He is ACTIVELY TRYING TO DESTROY THAT IDEA because it is not helpful. It's not humanity that is bad for the earth, it is ONE CULTURE that is living in such an unsustainable way and for so long that is now becoming obvious we can soon make ourselves extinct.

    You've missed these definitions as well, judging by your (collective) attitude. Tribalism: is merely the way that human beings made a living, and still do where they are allowed to. This was the social construction that allowed our evolution. Environmentalism: is a nonsense word because it once again furthers a myth that you can either be for or against the environment. Quinn's point is that we have an extremely dangerous belief (he in fact on multiple occasions calls it the most dangerous of all our crazy beliefs) that humans are somehow removed from and superior to, by a very great margin, all other life.

    I will parrot Daniel Quinn himself, Mr. Noonan, and challenge you to find anywhere, in any of his work, where Quinn lays out any single way of living. Please. Go ahead, scour it, I'll wait.

    Except I know you wont because you "won't be touching it again".

    The fact of the matter is that, over and over and over, the one thing he HAS said is that THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE. You find that exact line in almost all of his books, most of his essays and speeches, and I'm pretty sure every single one of his interviews.

    By Blogger Galen Schultz, at 10:03 PM  


  • As for the population problem... The world is not infinite. There is a finite amount of energy on this planet, and most of it is in the green plants as dictated by availability of sunlight. From there it goes into other creatures. Biological (and simply logical) fact. People are made of food, which they get from other creatures. Also simple, logical fact. You all following along? Every time you eat something, you are literally taking biomass and turning it into more you. When a population does this a lot, it begins to grow. Now, normally, that means that your food supply begins to diminish. You're eating it up. Makes sense, right? Might be a huge swing, like in the population of snowshoe hares and the lynx. Or it might be small and more gradual. Either way, population MUST BE controlled by food supply. There is simply nothing else to make people out of. Before you try and cite any other "evidence" otherwise, try and argue that point. Please. It'll be amusing. There's nothing of starvation here. The lynx population doesn't every single piece of food available to them in a month and then... what, famine? You don't find famine in the animal kingdom unless there's been an environmental disaster like a hurricane or flood.

    Now what OUR culture has done is, instead of letting ourselves be subject to this system that ALL OTHER LIFE EVER ON THE PLANET is subject to, we've instead historically and like clockwork just expanded our agricultural acreage. This means that we're literally taking space from non-human-food plants and only planting food that humans can eat. Then we take all of our food and do our damndest to destroy all of THEIR competitors for food. It's not enough to exterminate the wolves so they don't kill our cows, we also have to exterminate the aurochs because it's too smart to sit in a pen, and would compete with our cows (which in fact are descended from that stock). And then, when we start running into a bit of a corner, you know, because there's a bunch of tribal folks who don't really like us now expanding into our territory, we offer them the choice (and have always offered them the choice) of joining us or perishing absolutely. On and on for 10,000 years to the present era. This is a VERY abridged and hardly comprehensive summary of many of the things he said in Ishmael. That you fixate so much on the damn "telepathic monkey" thing just shows your lack of critical thinking skills and is evidence of a very closed mind.

    By Blogger Galen Schultz, at 10:03 PM  

  • You know what the funny thing is? He's never even said that there's anything wrong with this way of life. And there's not. There's nothing inherently wrong with this type of living. But there is, undoubtedly, something EXTREMELY unsustainable about it. Especially when you have so many different forms of cultural missionary.

    By the way, Noonan, your summary of his flying machine analogy is laughably misguided and completely misses the main point of it. You seem to do a pretty fair job of missing the point in things. Not to mention you barely got the most basic of details correct.

    Joel, you're a saint for trying.

    Instead of reading these admittedly uncomfortable-at-times statements from between the fingers of your hands as you hold them up to your eyes, why don't you do some actual research into this stuff. That's how I got here, actually, because I've never really ran into much resistance except in anecdote. I was curious what the thought process of dissenters might be, and hoped to find reasoned discussion. Instead I find people who are simply not ready mentally to have a real talk.

    I just realized, too, Noonan, that you are unhelpful at reviewing books. Should have been obvious from the utterly grumpy "Books I Hate". I imagine you typing this while looking like Jeff Dunham's Walter puppet. There's little actual substance to your review. Just "It sucks, it's stupid, there was this thing he said that's dumb, and then there was also a talking monkey and how STUPID is THAT?!". You missed the point of the book, you misconstrued almost everything he said, you attributed completely false words to the author, and you have shown me little ability at useful reading comprehension. I hate that there are people listening to you, not because you disagree with me, but because they're ALSO coming to the same asinine conclusions--completely missing the points and just nodding along. I don't mind a discussion, but I dislike having to tow people along with the proper information for a while just to get them to talk about the things that actually are debatable.

    But I guess I did anyway, a bit, didn't I? Oh well.

    By Blogger Galen Schultz, at 10:04 PM  

  • Thank you, all of you, for your critical thought.

    Man's Dominion over the Earth is a paradigm that no longer serves.

    The biggest power utility where I live in Richmond, VA, is named Dominion Power. The company is currently working to build three pipelines through the state to transport hydraulically fracked "natural" gas.

    In response a group of artists, Lobo Marino, made a music video at Yogaville, a local ashram. See below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFrpNWCd9v0


    Also I wanted to say: ...the question is a beaver dam natural??... that really gets to the heart of the truth. Brillant. Of course it is. As are we. There is no difference between "man-made" and what is "natural." We ARE (A PART OF) NATURE... (Not on top of her as we have assumed...)

    We are not killing the planet. We are killing ourselves. She was here before us, will be here after us. Skies and seas affected though they may be.

    And about that... As far as the population is concerned, please see graph below. You'll notice the dawn of agriculture (10,000 yrs ago)... and then WWII (1940s) i.e. dawn of fossil fuels. I love data too. I am not against science. But I am grossly opposed to reductionist, compartmentalized thinking. We are not disconnected from the biosphere. Your blood and the ocean water are in terms of minerals, almost identical.


    http://sites.gsu.edu/geog1112/files/2014/07/GlobalPopulation_small-1wv3o2f.png

    By Blogger Josie, at 8:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Search:
Keywords:
Amazon Logo