Has anyone else read this book? If so, what do you think of Quinn's philosophy about the direction of our civilization?
Printable View
Has anyone else read this book? If so, what do you think of Quinn's philosophy about the direction of our civilization?
Yes, I've read it but it was loooong time ago and I don't remember much of it now. Ummm...talking gorilla...Takers and Leavers...right? I do remember being pretty impressed by the ideas at the time (I think I was like 14 when I read it for the first time), but to discuss it intelligently now I'd have to re-read it. Sorry, I know my post is kinda useless, lol.
--Kelsey
Yup, that's the one!
Basically, his whole philosophy is that agriculture is the root of all of man's evil; as soon as we started controlling our food supply we upset the balance of nature. Naturally, it's not quite that cut and dried, but it's the best I can do for a super short condensed description. :P
The book was beautifully written though. The other books that followed it are pretty good as well, especially The Story of B.
Ohhhh yeah. Agriculture = root of all evil. I did read some of his other books too, but don't have much recollection of those either. No offense to Daniel Quinn or his books, it's just that I have trouble remembering stuff from about ages 14 to 17. It all seems jumbled and doesn't make much sense to me now that my frame of reference is quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouroboros
Anyway, what DO you think about the view that organized agriculture is the source of our collective problems? I am curious now since I haven't thought much about that theory in a long time. And have you read any of the Ringing Cedars of Russia Series (Anastasia books) which present a very interesting view on what agriculture (among other things) could be like?
--Kelsey
I think there's a lot of merit to his way of thinking, but I'm not quite as enamored with it as I used to be. I don't think going back to the hunter/gatherer society is really the kind of a panacea we want to be going for, at least not in this day and age. I think Quinn is being a bit idealistic when describing what living would be like if we went back to that. Really, I don't think we can blame all of our problems on a single aspect of society like that. Everything is a little too interconnected for that, in my opinion. ;)
I'm not familiar with the Ringing Cedars of Russia...never even heard of it before! Sounds interesting, though.
Yes, it seems a little simplistic, but then I'm going by what I sorta remember about his ideas and the description you gave me so there is probably more to his ideas than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouroboros
I agree that it does not seem feasible to go back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. People would have to WANT to do that in order for it to work and I don't see that happening anytime soon, lol. Logically people understand that we are killing ourselves with our lifestyle, but that's not enough to force them to change. Has anyone ever overcome an addiction through pure logic? Probably not. A lot of the time people have to hit rock bottom and really FEEL the horror of what they're doing first before they begin to change (speaking from observation, not experience). But they don't begin to change back to what they were before their addiction started, they can't really do that. Instead, they have to integrate what they learned from their experiences and build something new. I think the same idea applies to humanity as a whole, rather unfortunately for us who may very well be living in 'rock bottom' times. I think we will overcome our collective addictions though. For a time, I lost all hope and was convinced we wouldn't and would destroy ourselves. That thinking made me very depressed though. So, for my own well being, I choose to be optimistic. I don't know what will happen in the future, but I feel better if I think it's something positive and I feel more willing to make positive changes in my own life then too.
I find the ideas presented in the Ringing Cedars Series quite intriguing, the author (whether you take that to be Vladimir Megre or Anastasia is up to you) seems to have a good sense of what people truly want (to be happy, duh) and believes he/she has the solution for people to live both happy and ecologically sustainable lives. Not only that, but he/she makes a pretty convincing case that these goals are vitally important, mutually dependent and fairly easily achieved.
I know I am not giving much details about the actual ideas in the books, but that's because I don't want to color your judgement if you do decide to read them. Quick warning: some of the ideas tend to elicit strong emotional reactions. I am not usually one to get emotional over stuff I read, either, but the Anastasia books made me run the gamut from almost pissed off enough to quit to weepy to exhilarated. And it's not because the writing is particular deft or anything. Don't get me wrong, I am not out to make converts here and I do not believe wholeheartedly in everything in the books, but they did make me think A LOT.
There are 9 books total in the series, but you only need to read the first one to get the gist of the message. I have all 9 though, because once I start reading something, it's hard for me to stop. I can devour books at an incredible rate if it's something I'm interested in, lol.
All I can say is that part of my studies were studying the hunting and gagthering lifestyle- no thanks. I hope we find a better way, but I don't think that's it either.
I thought people are the root of all evil, not growing cucumbers in my backyard... :twisted:Quote:
Originally Posted by VioletImagery
Returning to hunter-gatherer societies will make people better?
Are people in hunting gathering societies better in some way?
Really?
From what I remember of Quinn's writing morality doesn't enter in to the equation - he believes modern society is headed for a cataclysmic collapse due to unsustainable living practices, and believes that the whole problem could have been avoided if we'd simply stuck with the tribal hunter/gatherer mode of living. It's not that people would be better, but rather that humanity would not be a cancer eating away at the planet. I believe he's an animist, if that helps shed any additional light onto his philosophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaco
Yes, that helped a lot, thank you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouroboros
A lot of people would have to die. We can exist in such large numbers because of agriculture.
He proposes a simple solution to a complex problem, but there are no simple solution to complex problems :|
Our civilization could(would) collapse.
Besides cancers are also a part of nature, and human development is natural, even if it is destructive.
That's pretty much the way I've come to view it to, and why I'm not as crazy about Quinn's ideas as I used to be. :)