Daniel Quinn is a colossal fool

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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obviously reduce our quality of life, and not necessarily do any good for ecological integrity (correct me if this is outdated, but there is/was a theory that Australian hunter gatherers are at least partly responsible for the ecological devastation of the continent).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.

Except that no species would chose to abandon surpluses. All biological speacies are kept in check by nature-its not like they play by some plan- all species are selfish and seek to reproduce and expend.

I guess Quinn thinks humans can chose to stop behaving as all life does. I just think he is an idiot.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by 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.

No, he doesn't just use it as illustration - he talks about it as being historical record, a fable of "leavers" incorporated into "taker" scripture.

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.

But it's not just an economic or supply argument - it's easy to talk about how overpopulation is bad. He talks about how we need to fundamentally need to change the attitudes of our culture to something that is completely unrealistic, and posits that we "takers" were dumb enough to "create" a society of exploitation, while the noble "leavers" contemplate their perfect society over time instead of blindly rushing into it as we have.

He's not Jared Diamond - it's not just a book about "how we got here." It's not just about Malthusian limits. It's about how we need to have a "revolution," as he nebulously puts it.

And I haven't heard that about Australian hunter-gatherers, but it seems like that bit of info would hurt his already deficient argument quite a bit if true.

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.

He also argues that we should compete fairly with other species rather than "going to war" with them. Apparently he doesn't realize that "competing," in nature, means death, and the human race happens to put a high value on its own life. His cavalier attitudes towards what would result in a massive reduction of the human population, frankly, disturb me. It's not as if the people that can't be supported with the "neo-tribalist" lfiestyle are going to emigrate to Mars or something. They will die.

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.

The only valid points in the book are the ones that are common sense. He uses those obvious points (resources should be conserved, natural systems work best at regulating ecological balance, atrificially sustaining the population of a country that can't feed its own population is bad, etcetera) to come to bizarre and erroneous conclusions. And, to top it all off, he doesn't even pretend to know how to effect these conclusions, and seems largely ignorant as to the results they would have.

[foolish_icarus]

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

Right. And from there he concludes that surpluses (not just food, but anything that other flora/fauna use for food or habitat) are bad.

Mr. Quinn, humans are not Malthusian. F

Irrelevant. Most of us will agree that regardless of our technical ability to support a larger populations, we would prefer the population and our impact on the environment to stop growing at some point. I like open spaces. They're pretty. I also like abundance of natural resources and the lower prices that allows.
And there is a certain benefit to having some leeway between the maximum amount of resources we can (without disaster) use, and what we do use.

Except that no species would chose to abandon surpluses. All biological speacies are kept in check by nature-its not like they play by some plan- all species are selfish and seek to reproduce and expend.
I guess Quinn thinks humans can chose to stop behaving as all life does. I just think he is an idiot.

We're not other species. As individuals, we can make choices to consume less than we have the ability for. For example, I enjoy many of the amenities modern life has to offer, but feel more comfortable using the less resource-intensive options when my means will permit it. Almost none of it has to do with how I feel about arguments like Quinn's, but some people do live more frugally due to their concern about long term issues. More power to them---that choice is worthy of admiration, not ridicule.

One of Quinn's central points, perhaps the one that most approaches uniqueness in his book, is that the natural constraints that other species face work differently on us. If a predator overhunts its prey, the predators will die back and typically some form of equilibrium will be reestablished.
If we "overhunt" we possess the means to extend range over which we draw resources, perhaps suffering a reduction in standard of living rather than numbers. This is good for us in the short run, as die offs are no fun. Maybe it's also good for us in the long run. We may possess the capacity to keep doing this indefinitely, in which case well and good, but I think we're better off safe than sorry.

No, he doesn't just use it as illustration - he talks about it as being historical record, a fable of "leavers" incorporated into "taker" scripture.

Ishmael says that. I doubt Quinn literally believes it. If he does, fine, it's a little silly. But his ideas (or rather some of them) can still hold weight.

But it's not just an economic or supply argument - [...].

I don't think it's unrealistic to say that we should be more careful. And we do lack the capacity to keep the environment healthy through overall planning. We can keep small portions of it healthy, and a bunch of healthy small parts tends to make a healthy whole. Most of us reject a solely hunter-gatherer, no-surplus basis for civilization.
On the other hand, certain practices in our typical paradigm for civilization are dangerous. There is a happy medium we could do well to move towards. A slightly modified standard based on Quinn's conclusions might say something like, "longer term resource/land depletion and damage to the ecology must be taken into account when calculating the costs and benefits of 'Taker' (I dislike the term, but it is concise) activities."

Quinn would say those ecological factors must be weighed heavily. I would say they must be given weight, though probably not as much as Quinn would suggest. It is rather subjective, because long term ecological risks and the importance one places on their supposed consequences vary from person to person. It seems rather miserly to place no importance in those risks just because they are for the future.

He also argues that we should compete fairly with other species rather than "going to war" with them. [...].

Presumably we would be sensible enough to not create a large enough population that some would have to die. Especially because size is not the sole determining factor, but also the amount each person consumes.

The only valid points in the book are the ones that are common sense. [...]

Common sense which has probably not been adequately implemented.
If we were to literally follow Ishmael's suggestions, then yes they would be bizarre and erroneous. I can't speak for how much of that Quinn would actually have us exactly do. But he did make his point, which I agree is not to clear, but does have some usable content: With surpluses, nature cannot bring us back into the equilibrium that increases the chances of our long term survival. We can either give up the ability to create surpluses and go back to the (good/bad) old days of original Leaverism like all the other animals, or maintain that capacity for surpluses and modern civilization but take more responsibility over its exercize, including sometimes giving up immediate abundance for long term stability.

His proposal is not the only way to deal with the situation, certainly. But despite the antagonism towards it (which is understandable; it has been a few years since I read Ishmael so my own irritation with it has mellowed) some of his analyses have merit, and it doesn't help us any to dismiss them, but mixed in with some practicality they can do us some good.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by foolish_icarus
Ishmael says that. I doubt Quinn literally believes it. If he does, fine, it's a little silly. But his ideas (or rather some of them) can still hold weight.

Considering that he used the books to directly start an associated neo-tribal movement, I'm given to think he really does believe it. Heck, his "instructions" for people who read the book are to "go and teach 100 more." This is not some obliquely applicable work of fiction.

Quinn did make a point about surpluses; true. That is an something we as a society should look more closely at. But to glean only that from his work would be, I believe, insufficient for his purposes. It's not enough that the taker lifestyle must be destroyed; it must be replaced. He doesn't know what it's supposed to be replaced with. And again, this is a theme throughout his trilogy, and something he stands by on the numerous internet sites and boards for neo-tribalists.

Should we lower consumption? Of course. But given the amount of people we already have, simply lowering consumption to what we require to survive still won't give us the luxury of being only competitors. It doesn't require Quinn's tortured logic to arrive at the conclusion that we are in trouble and we need to do something about it, but he has no anwers, and his arguments do more to mislead people about the nature of the problem. Neo-tribalists discuss the nature of society and the emulation of equally exploitative, only less agricultural tribal peoples, when they should be focusing on the common sense issues you have so correctly laid out. We don't need a new society to save the earth - we need the old society to set its mind to the task.

[foolish_icarus]

I agree. Or close enough to it, anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by foolish_icarus
Irrelevant. Most of us will agree that regardless of our technical ability to support a larger populations, we would prefer the population and our impact on the environment to stop growing at some point. I like open spaces. They're pretty. I also like abundance of natural resources and the lower prices that allows.

That's not the point. He says that unless we stop surpluses we will CONTINUOUSLY grow. This is demonstrably untrue.

[Sava]

No. Unless you stop your food surplus, your storage will continue to grow and then your city size will increase. If you want it to grow slower, sell your granary and rearrange your laborers. But with a surplus, you will always grow.

[Kuciwalker]

Sid Meier has pwned me

[Berzerker]

the mark of Cain was skin color? I though the Bible says the mark would protect him and the subsequent 6 or 7 generations of Cain.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Berzerker
the mark of Cain was skin color? I though the Bible says the mark would protect him and the subsequent 6 or 7 generations of Cain.

No, most sensible people agree it was not - but at one point, this was a common belief, and it is still held to be true by some, especially white supremacists. Don't ask me why.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sava
No. Unless you stop your food surplus, your storage will continue to grow and then your city size will increase. If you want it to grow slower, sell your granary and rearrange your laborers. But with a surplus, you will always grow.

orbitals,crawlers and GA's exacerbate this.

[Last Conformist]

Novel? Novel? The guy we're discussing is a frikken novelist?


I've never heard about Australian hunter-gatherers causing ecological devastation, but American ones are probably responsible for the extinction of almost all megafauna of the Americas at the end of the last ice age. The critters had survived the endings of multiple previous ice ages, and the only obvious difference this time round was the presence of human hunting.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Novel? Novel? The guy we're discussing is a frikken novelist?

He's a novelist, in the same way that L Ron Hubbard is a novelist - his novels are attempts to attract people to his socio-political agenda.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Novel? Novel? The guy we're discussing is a frikken novelist?

Sadly yes

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Sadly yes

What next, teach palaeontology from Jurassic Park?