Daniel Quinn is a colossal fool

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I didn't say the interpration hasn't been done, I denied it made sense. Nobody familiar with the story could conclude that the mark of Cain was a curse. That many Christians have concluded so only proves that Christians, as a rule, don't read the Bible, which is hardly news.

Point taken. On a minor note, they don't think the mark is a curse, they think it identifies those people as being descended from Cain, who was cast out by God. The mark to them indicates the rejection, it isn't a curse itself.

Now, I'm not familiar with Quinn's interpretation, but I assume it's a variant of the idea it's about the rivalry between herders and farmers (a very real issue in the ancient Mid-East), and since part of the "point" of the story seems to be that God prefer herders over farmers, I'd say that such interpretations actually make a modicum of sense.

Perhaps, but couldn't it be equally likely that it was a parable about jealousy, or simply a way to explain why you should sacrifice animals, rather than fruit, to God?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Perhaps, but couldn't it be equally likely that it was a parable about jealousy, or simply a way to explain why you should sacrifice animals, rather than fruit, to God?

Certainly. I didn't say the farmer/herder rivalry idea is the only one that makes some sense.

(You could go meta, and ask yourself what sort of people would invent a god who prefers animal sacrifice to vegetable. But I suppose this has little to do with Mr Quinn.)

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Certainly. I didn't say the farmer/herder rivalry idea is the only one that makes some sense.

Yes, I understand. My original point was simply that there was no support for his interpretation being the right one; he's just reading into it what he wants to. Of course, it could be right, but so could a hundred other interpretations.

(You could go meta, and ask yourself what sort of people would invent a god who prefers animal sacrifice to vegetable. But I suppose this has little to do with Mr Quinn.)

And this isn't one of those threads, either

[Kuciwalker]

I really had to roll my eyes when I came to that. I mean, the other stuff was inane and amateur, but putting in the whole biblical stuff was absurd.

[Last Conformist]

If he thinks hunter/gatherer life is so neat, why don't he move to lowland Irian Jaya or something?

[Kuciwalker]

Because of course we don't actually have to be hunter-gatherers - if we do it right, somehow, our advanced agriculture and technological civilization will stop violating the Laws of Nature and, by the way, completely eliminate social injustice. No explanation of quite how to achieve this is provided...

[Last Conformist]

Is it just me, or does this guy sound like a run-of-the-mill idealist crazy?

[Kuciwalker]

No, he's more well known and more inane than most.

[Last Conformist]

More inane than the girls who think setting fire to a lorry will stop the exploitation of animals? That's kinda impressive.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Is it just me, or does this guy sound like a run-of-the-mill idealist crazy?

[Cyclotron]

If he's just a harmless nut, explain this (which, by the way, doubles as an example of bias in Wikipedia):

Ishmael is a novel by Daniel Quinn that provides a fresh perspective on the world that we find ourselves in today. With this it brings its readers a new way of looking at human history and an alternative to the way we live now. Ishmael was awarded the largest prize ever given to a single work of fiction, the $500,000 Turner Tomorrow Fellowship Award.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because of course we don't actually have to be hunter-gatherers - if we do it right, somehow, our advanced agriculture and technological civilization will stop violating the Laws of Nature and, by the way, completely eliminate social injustice. No explanation of quite how to achieve this is provided...

Not only is there no explanation of how it will be done, but he actively explains that he doesn't know either. From the equally craptastic "My Ishmael:"

1. The revolution won't take place all at once. It's not going to be any sort of coup d'état like the French or Russian revolutions.
2. It will be achieved incrementally, by people working off each other's ideas. This is the great driving innovation of the Industrial Revolution.
3. It will be led by no one. Like the Industrial Revolution, it will need no shepherd, no organizer, no spearhead, no pacesetter, no mastermind at the top; it will be too much for anyone to lead.
4. It will not be the initiative of any political, governmental, or religious body - again, like the Industrial Revolution. Some will doubtless want to claim to be its supporters and protectors; there are always leaders ready to step forward once others have shown the way.
5. It has no targeted end point. Why should it have an end point?
6. It will proceed according to no plan. How on earth could there be a plan?
7. It will reward those who further the revolution with the coin of the revolution. In the Industrial Revolution, those who contributed much in the way of product wealth received much in the way of product wealth; in the New Tribal Revolution, those who contribute much in the way of support will receive much in the way of support.

[Kuciwalker]

Wow, hadn't seen that.

What a ****ing moron.

[foolish_icarus]

Quinn doesn't believe we should change the nature of civilization because the Bible tells us so--he saw some elements that he could use to illustrate his point, and he did so.
His point is that societies, and therefore presumably any group of people much larger than a clan, should stop producing surpluses (and by necessity stop consuming the now non-existant surpluses). This would obviously reduce our quality of life, and not necessarily do any good for ecological integrity (correct me if this is outdated, but there is/was a theory that Australian hunter gatherers are at least partly responsible for the ecological devastation of the continent). I don't know if this is what he actually wants, or if once again he is just using an idea to illustrate a point.
Taken in moderation however, his proposal is not particularly original or radical: Produce no surpluses/extract no resources (physical or biological) that will come at the long-term expense of "ecological stability"--which in Quinn's estimation means the natural world's tendency to keep populations in check and ecological sytems robust--Or in the more common belief, to maintain the environment's capacity to indefinitely support mankind.
Since Quinn believes we are not good enough at planning for/making decisions about ecology (a pretty fair judgement), he also thinks that we should not maintain activities that jeopardize an environment in the short term.
So despite his irritating writing style, it's pretty much common sense. And if his writing convinces people to consume fewer resources, that's fine with me.

[Kuciwalker]

No, Quinn's point is that food surpluses = more population = greater demand for food = larger surpluses etc.

Mr. Quinn, humans are not Malthusian. F