Where We Went Wrong

[babylonIZfallin]

Where we ARE going wrong, it ain't over till it's over, meaning WE can STILL STOP this stupidity NOW, lets create a world where ALL LIFE can LIVE with DIGNITY EQUALLY, what WE WILL find is that it is actually easier to do that than what WE are doing NOW.

thank you

[snakessoundingloud]

recommending his book 'ISHMAEL'



[fegu]

a better writer than a speaker.

[LeguimCh]

this man did an extreme amount of research... i could tell... but he forgot one thing... we've already put the planet in a horrible state... well for me my past generation, (assholes), but just dying wont solve anything... the world will still have the pollution we left... so instead of accepting the fact that were bad and grieving about it, we should advance as fast as we can to try and find a way to reverse our bads...it's up to the new generation to fix this planet, and then move on to others

[innovateur]

Great writer but not a great speaker.

[walter0bz]

should implement Silent Running but backwards.

anyone in favour of a continued population boom should be stuck on a spaceship

[silversurfers7]

....check out "Who Lies Sleeping" ...about 1 particular dinosaur becoming very intelligent. All signs of technology is seen in fossils.....a must read!!!!

[silversurfers7]

....the governments around the world have secretly banded together about what to do about the ufo phenomena, but in reality, there's nothing they can do about it. The ET technology is far superior to human technology, ET's have been abducting humans for a long time, for cloning, cross-breeding etc, and their mission has long past, like a thief in the night they done what they done 1 particular ET came here & started us off; others are checking us out etc.

[gabepinnick]

I hate to be picky, but daniel says the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the permian period. The dinosaurs evolved after the mass extinction of the permian, and they themselves went extinct at the end of the mesozoic era, specifically the end of the cretaceous period :)

[sthprk666]

Besides, if humanity fucks up, destruction breeds creation. Life will find a way, again. If the chaos of evolution has brought us this far, what exists now--i.e. a conflict between "civilization" and the damage it renders to the environment--may just be the next thesis and antithesis for which evolution must achieve its next synthesis. Evolution's dialetic lives on.

[TribalVegan]

Or we outstrip the soil, contribute massively to global warming, and we all starve anyway...Some people really talk out of their asses!

[nicolatwo]

For DrBuzz and soylentgreenb: My last comment to you. You continue to write lies to the public. Maybe you do this because you profit from this financially in some form. Maybe you believe these lies. Whichever it is, if you continue to believe that the car is red while the truth is it's blue, then do that. It's ethically wrong to educate people in public with lies. My plea to the public is to educate yourself from unbiased sources. Google is a good place to look for information. Look at all info.

[soylentgreenb]

You've bought into the idea of the noble savage and the naturalistic fallacy and you see the world through a particular filter. You tend to surround yourself with others who agree with your world view and as such your information sources are filtered to confirm your existing view.

"Google is a good place to look for information. "

Google is no substitute for peer-reviewed science journals, it's particularly bad if you are unable to keep your confirmation bias in check.

[soylentgreenb]

It is a fact that several billions would have to "disappear" without haber-bosch or an equivalent synthetic nitrogen fixation method(which organic farming does not allow). They would not lay down and die or go quitely into the night, these people would resort to slash and burn agriculture which would be a total disaster.

You may consider the troubles caused to some frog by the use pesticides as some kind of calamity, but I don't, especially not considering your alternative.

[IngeniousEpithet]

Actually the science behind population states that there is definitely a point at which the environment cannot sustain too many of a certain species. It would be insane to believe that humans can reproduce at such a rapid rate without any unacceptably ill consequences. We must reduce population, this doesn't have to be done violently, it can be done more intelligently/carefully so as to actually REDUCE suffering rather than cause it. Birth control definitely helps, but food supply is the root.

[IngeniousEpithet]

Soylent,

If you're insinuating that Daniel Quinn subscribes to the idea of the "noble savage" then you're mistaken. He has explicitly stated that he doesn't view tribal peoples as particularly noble, holy, perfect, utopian, etc. but he does correctly note that where people are found living tribally, they are free from the extreme problems we face in our own society. They're still humans, capable of nasty things, but it's far far less prevalent amongst them, not to mention they live sustainably.

[DrBuzz0]

No a don't profit from any of this. God, what a strawman! Have you ever actually considered that the internet is full of biased sources? Human civilization has a few mixed blessings but learn some history and you'll see the picture is not as cut and dry as you'd like to make it, but by and large technological and industrial development has been a positive thing at all levels.

The irony that you'd even argue this on a computer is apparently lost.

[IngeniousEpithet]

Technological/industrial development has been a positive thing at ALL levels??

Talk about a severely biased (and cut and dry) view. Now I'm normally open to many different views and pieces of evidence on the state of our world, but I can say right now that your statement is most definitely FALSE. If you pay attention to science/technology at all, you will see that most, but not all, modern problems are caused by technology. I'll agree that many technologies are beautiful and fascinating.

[nicolatwo]

For GCarty and DrBuzz: Chemical fertilizers, pesticides and GMO crops are damaging to this planet. Scientific research has proven this over and over again. I have seen it myself, too. When nature is manipulated, it becomes unstable and unbalanced. We must listen to those who have switched over to natural and organic agriculture, they know how much they are benefitting from it. I wrote an article on the health hazards of pesticides which is on my myspace page nicolafour. Please read this article.

[soylentgreenb]

"Chemical fertilizers, pesticides and GMO crops are damaging to this planet."

All of the above are very beneficial to humans and that's all I care about. Primarily they reduce land and water use.

I like having the current unprecedented level of food security and food safety. I like the fact that land can be returned to forests. If you start killing people with starvation they're going to go around slashing and burning every last bit of forest.

[Feomathar007]

When people starve we grow food.

When we grow food the population increases.

When the population increases some fall into starvation and we grow even more food.

We are already burning the forests for our fields.

We destroy anything that is not our food or our living space.

We are destroying the society of life, and we are a part of it.

One day our culture will be on the extinct list, unless we change our ways...

[soylentgreenb]

That's a load of bollocks.

The only effective meassure that has EVER reduced birth rates is increased production of food, energy, education and other resources necessary to live a reasonable life.

Cultivated land area has not increased in the last 30 years. In the west it has shrunk by a huge amount.

[Feomathar007]

It took 200 000 years to get from 10 000 people to 10 million people.

Since the birth of agriculture our numbers went from 10 million to 6.5 billion in 10 000 years.

Agriculture was the key to all other keys, it allowed us to defy the laws of nature.

It allowed us to store food and build a base (village).

You do not need energy or education to live a reasonable life, the tribal people prove that.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE VISIT MY CHANNEL AND THE LINKS I HAVE PROVIDED...

[DrBuzz0]

Genetically engineered crops have never caused any of the ridiculous things they are blamed for. They don't in any way harm the enviornment. All agriculture is artificial - plants don't grow large food producing fruit in rows for us to eat. We make them do it. We breed them to and plant them.

And it works.. It works very very well.

Nature was not built to provide for the needs of man. Nature just is. It is brutal.

[Feomathar007]

You should take in account that we cut down a few rainforests, exterminated species just to get area for our food.

Even more, we killed all animals that eat our food.

We killed all plants that compete with our food (weeds).

We transformed the land to only feed US and we ensured that our population grew even more...

We are a part of "nature" , we just do not follow its laws just like all the animals and the tribal people do...

[DrBuzz0]

Read it. Humans are not seperate from nature and it's as approperate for humans to modify their surroundings to their own needs as any other species. Beavers build dams, bees build hives. There is nothing "Natural" about farming to begin with. Growing high yield crops in little rows for our own food needs does not happen without intervention. Nature does not provide us with optimal conditions. Nature is brutal.

[plotifer]

"Nature" is a fabrication of our own Culture.

[sthprk666]

You're right, nature IS brutal.

Hence why in a choice between "Leaver" freedom of the forest (equipped with a myriad of predators and fucking mosquitoes), and the "Taker's" destructive civilization (the decadent lifestyle it has so fortunately provided me), I'll choose the latter.

Quinn points out that population growth is exponential; so is human innovation. I am going to place my faith in humanity gaining control of that airplane and coming out of free fall--after all, we did take to the sky.

[Feomathar007]

As Daniel Quinn stated, the airplane is not capable of flying, the laws of aerodynamics apply to all airplanes just as the law of life applies for all living beings in the society of life.

We opposed all the laws of the life society and therefore the airplane will crash unless we change our way.

Its not needed to work all day, put all the effort in geting our food. Animals do not need an oil plant, a plane or a ship to feed themselves.

Its pointless to make such tremendous efforts...

[DrBuzz0]

Few things are more "sustainable" than modern agriculture. We can make the fertalizer out of air (literally) and use land with extreme effeciency while producing food so bountiful that a person working minimum wage an hour a day can afford enough calories to even be obese.

"Natural" farming is what causes famine. In Ireland they farmed the "natural" way. A fungus came through and people starved to death. Today that doesn't happen anymore. (fungicides, genetic engineering, etc)

[Snorlux7591]

The fertilizer itself may be sustainable, but it causes unsustainable population growth.

[Feomathar007]

Its all about the people, isnt it?

FUCK THE WORLD, we can do whatever we want with it, we know what is good and bad.

We know who should die or who should live.

If something is taking our food, kill it.

If the food of our food is being eaten, kill whoever is eating it.

We will destroy ourselves and exterminate many species along the way unless we change our way as Daniel Quinn suggested.

[soylentgreenb]

Pol pot already tried to create the society you are clamoring for. Remember what happened?

[soylentgreenb]

The amount of fossil fuels consumed by agriculture is trivial and easily fixed if anyone cared to do it.

We've got enough uranium and thorium for the next billion years.

The mineral fertilizer is already mined with electrical power.

Container ships can be powered by nuclear reactors directly.

Rail can be electrified.

Ammonia can be trivially produced from electricity or gasifcation of biomass and haber-bosch.

Short-range trucks and farming equipment can trivially be electrified.

[soylentgreenb]

In most of human history the average lifespan was some 30 years. Polygamy and cannibalism were common occurences. The most common cause of death was murdered.

[DrBuzz0]

Tribalism being better than civilization? I don't think so. Tribes commonly engage in local warfare for resources and if you consider modern examples tribalism inevitably breeds warlords. These systems tend to favor a few ruling many by their own nature.

The life expectancy in tribal peoples tend to be very very low. Tribalism is a great way of breeding conflict because it divides cultures into distinct groups which are primarily concerned with their own welfare at the expense of others

[JeffTheFutureJaros]

WORD QUINN!

[brefinburgs]

The progress of human knowledge will outweigh the damages we have done to certain things on this planet. We still live in an age where we don't have full control over the certainty of our existence or quality of life. Within 50-70 years we will no longer worry about any of this due to technology. There will be losses but technology will revert most, if not all animal extinctions. I do not say this with confidence, I say this with certainty. Many of you will live it with me, there is your proof.

[withindarkness]

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. " -Einstein

Your view of the future is flying car bullshit... wishful, speculative fiction.

When is the destructive transitory phase going to end? When are we going to enter this glorious "future" that justifies all the loss?

Never.

People will keep chasing illusions of progress, saying, "just a little further" as they have for years. Today's victims drafted as fodder for tomorrows cure.

[DrBuzz0]

Has our previous thinking really caused such problems and not solutions? Today we live with longer lifespans than ever and greater health than in human history.

Our per-capita impact is not necessarily as bad as some make it out to be.

Imagine if everyone in the US crapped in the woods: it would destroy our water supplies and contaminate the land. So sewage treatment means we have less impact.

Why was this acceptable centuries ago? More death. Less people. Less impact.

[nicolatwo]

That's why we need to have a one child per woman policy. If you send me a death threat I will not respond. I talk to people if they talk respectfully just like I talk to you respectfully.

[DrBuzz0]

And how is this to be enforced? How about forced steralization after giving birth to the one child? Oh, and what about twins? Do you abort them? What if you miss the fact that they're twins and don't realize it until they're born?

While we're at it, lets just sterilize the undesirables. Or those who we don't think ought to be caring for children...

We'll also have to manage all aspects of people's lives.

Welcome to the Soviet Union.

[nicolatwo]

For DrBuzz part 2: People need to pass a test first before having custody over animals and children. So many people do not know what animals and children need to survive. The reason why communism did not work is because people need incentives and motivation to do positive things. This is how our brains function. Only the socialized market structure with strong accountability and transparency works. Satellite Internet and TV work also on solar energy.

[GCarty80]

"Welcome to the Soviet Union"

More like Pol Pot's Cambodia (where the "Killing Fields" had an explicit purpose of population reduction).

The Soviet Union, for all its flaws, did at least support technological progress.

[soylentgreenb]

"When is the destructive transitory phase going to end?"

The transitory phase will never end, we'll always find ways to do things better.

" When are we going to enter this glorious "future" that justifies all the loss?""

We're already there. If you want to go back to a hunter gatherer society, grow a pair of balls and DO IT.

[sacredthornapple]

Most people dont realize that humans can actually have a POSITIVE impact on the bioregion, not just a neutral or negative one.

[ycnim]

once we are one of those 200 species that become extinct, the life will rebuild itself over a long period of time... that is, if there is any life left when we die out

[iaeruo]

i agree nicolatwo...

im heading to the southern u.s. this month to visit my grandparents, who have been small farmers since the 1950s. i hope to be schooled on how to plant crops, can and preserve food, as well as their permaculture set up.

heres some good advice, learn from prior generations - that generation has knowledge about things we can't afford to ignore. our parents generation are completely caught up in hyperreality so most of their advice is practically useless

[nicolatwo]

The answer is self sustainable and local living. Get away from the dependence on air planes, cars, oil, and the infrastructure that supplies our electricity and sewer systems. Grow your own food, recycle your waste products. Educate yourselves about independent and self sustainable living.

[DrBuzz0]

And yet you say this from your computer on an internet site that has digital videos stored on servers somewhere distant from you and connected via a vast network of fiberoptics, microwave rely, satellites and copper.

Does the irony escape you?

By the way, is it your contention that it was *bad* for humanity to move to the use of petroleum? Before we started using it we used whale oil and hunted whales to near extinction. In that light, the trouble that oil causes doesn't seem so bad.

[nicolatwo]

For Dr.Buzz0: No irony. We can have clean energy if every person began to adapt their lives to moving completely away from CO2 emissions energies. It is possible to do that. And it will make every person's life better.

[soylentgreenb]

With nuclear and hydro power, yes.

Wind and solar can't play much part in a CO2 free grid since they are utterly dependent on spinning reserve coal and natural gas turbines.

[nicolatwo]

For soylentgreenb: All clean energy sources are extremely important for us to utilize. Everything combined can be used to create energy without harming the environment. Hydro power is great. Nuclear power is highly dangerous and causes toxic waste.

[soylentgreenb]

"For soylentgreenb: All clean energy sources are extremely important for us to utilize."

Even the ones which are almost totally useless without liberal quantities of dirty coal and gas?

"Nuclear power is highly dangerous and causes toxic waste."

On a per TWh basis wind turbines have killed more people than civilian nuclear power(and that includes chernobyl).

The long lived "toxic waste" is actinides, i.e. fuel. Solar panels contain toxic materials which never decay.

[Feomathar007]

We do not need energy to live...

Tribal people do not need a power plant to put food in their belly...

They just take what is already there...

[Feomathar007]

We do not need energy to live...

Tribal people do not need a power plant to put food in their belly...

They just take what is already there...

[soylentgreenb]

They just take what is there, except when there is nothing there to take; then they just starve.

That kind of food insecurity and privation is completely unecessary and completely preventable because we have energy and technology.

[Feomathar007]

You can not find a starving bushman in a desert or a starving gebusi in a rainforest...

They eat their food until it gets smaller in population, when that happens the population of the tribe gets smaller. When the tribe gets smaller the food supply grows and breeds again.

It keeps the society of life in balance.

The tribes live under the same law as do animals.

Why do you think that humans are above animals? We came from the slime pit, the same ancestors. Why is their life so worse than ours

[IWashMyOwnBrain]

@Feomathar007 Humans are aware of their actions...animals are not. That is why humans are responsible for their actions and animals are not. Animals have not evolved to the point of awareness yet. We are not above animals ...but we do have more evolved brains. Your right I can't say humans are better off....lol

[Feomathar007]

@IWashMyOwnBrain A cheetah needs speed, claws, fangs to survive..

We dont have any of those, but we do have better thinking cappabilities that evolved to this point to serve a tribal human in his daily life.

Law system makes people responsible yet it does not work, people murder, rape, etc.. even with law in place.

There are "criminals" in every culture.

Most of our current life lifestyle is unnessecary (art, going to the moon, etc..)

Its a side product of our brain capacity..

[Feomathar007]

We do not need energy to live...

Tribal people do not need a power plant to put food in their belly...

[soylentgreenb]

"The answer is self sustainable and local living. Get away from the dependence on air planes, cars, oil, and the infrastructure that supplies our electricity and sewer systems."

Per capita you'll have a much larger impact on nature, by what means do you propose to kill about 6 billion humans and prevent anyone from ignoring your dystopian vision for subsistence farming?

[nicolatwo]

For soylentgreenb: I never proposed to kill 6 billion humans. Sustainable farming would save the planet.

[soylentgreenb]

"For soylentgreenb: I never proposed to kill 6 billion humans. Sustainable farming would save the planet. "

"Sustainable" subsistence farming would save the planet from humans, by killing most of them.

[nicolatwo]

For soylentgreenb: You never explained anything you said. Believe whatever you want to believe. I believe what I see and what makes sense and I believe science. When the car is blue it is blue. I can not force you to believe that the car is blue if you refuse. I am here to educate people. I do what I can to help.

[GCarty80]

The issue is that there's only enough land on our planet to support a third of our current population if chemical fertilizers are not used (unless GM crops are used, which could fix atmospheric nitrogen, unlike most traditional crops).

[soylentgreenb]

"You never explained anything you said. Believe whatever you want to believe."

With sustainable(sic) agriculture you need more water and more land for the same produce.

Without effective pesticides and effective transportation you must overproduce food and diversify into less efficient food sources than the typical staples or a crop failure will kill you sooner or later.

Billions of hungry humans who rely on cheap and plentiful food will spread out and proceed to slash and burn.

[soylentgreenb]

"I believe what I see and what makes sense and I believe science."

No you don't. You believe cherry picking and pseudoscience.

[DrBuzz0]

Modern farming methods produce enormous amounts of food reliably and economically. There are impacts on the local enviornment, but they can be managed to keep them within what can be tolerated.

Give up on modern farming and we are back to subsistance farming.

Less food = people starve.

This is how it was for most of human history. The Irish potato famine, the Great 1315 Famine, The Great Famines of Mideavle Russia were all caused by relying on primitive "natural" farming.

[Feomathar007]

It does not matter how hard you try to feed the starving.

We believe that we grow more food to feed the starving, but the starving do not get fed.

They add to the population growth just like everyone else.

We are growing more food to grow more people.

[Feomathar007]

We are going to kill ourselves already if we continue this way...

[readmedotexe]

I like the way you think, Mr. Quinn.

[arch3type]

Before ISHMAEL, I was a Taker.

After ISHMAEL, Mother Culture's voice has gone quiet, I'm a better human being, and I hear the earth's cries instead.

[cfairchild420]

The Story of B had a huge impact on me as well. Everything I read and think now is colored by it.

[eatmars]

lol he looks like george carlin

[CO2Junkie]

BTW there's no stopping evolution. In other words, we only go forward. The world is changed. Species are extinct. We cannot bring them back. We can promote the diversity & speciation of what's left, simply by controling ourselves & giving them some space. This we can do, whether it's moral or immoral. This we WILL do, whether it's 'better' or 'worse' or 'improved' or 'new'. Doesn't matter. It will get done when we are on the verge of extinction - whether it's 'just in time' or 'too late' :(

[alejandro15187]

love quinn read all his books, but I dont agree that tribesmen were more moral are better than us socially. Tribes slaughtered other tribes, were greedy, took land from each other, just on a different scale. Hell they burned others at the stake etc. I know what he says about usually it would be one life for one life on the tribal scale, but it still doesnt make them superior

[CO2Junkie]

You're thinking in terms of hierarchy (in my opinion) so you're worried about who's superior or inferior. It is not a necessity to think in this way. Example: which is superior - the dung beetle or the lion? If you're thinking in terms of our culture, the top predator is 'superior'. If you're thinking in terms of ecology, in terms of the bigger system, they're both necessary, and they both enjoy their job. Neither is superior. I think Quinn thinks in terms of systems, not hierarchies.

[alejandro15187]

I'm thinking morally. I love aspects of both cultures.But I also think it's a pointless arguement. In a sense, Quinn is arguing for a return to the womb. It's wishful thinking. Yes, we are a flawed society, but there is no going back, and we have to be more realistic when we abou our approach to problem solving issues. I adore Quinn's writing, and I'm one of those wishful thinker, but it's just not practical, in fact, it's irresponsible and counterproductive.

[johndoooeee]

Saying we cann't go back makes it sound like we've made progress. It's not about linear progression its about what works, civilation doesn't work, it never will work.

[alejandro15187]

not really, it simply means time has passed an certain events have happned.

[CO2Junkie]

Morally? What do you mean 'morally'? Who gave you this morality? Did Quinn ever use the word 'moral' in his books? I can't remember it ever being used. I'm not idolizing the guy but he pointed out in 'Beyond Civilization' there is no going back. Your point is agreed upon by many of us Quinn fans. But those who support these ideas are not wishful thinkers... There's no going back, it's been said over n over again. Although, I'm sure it doesn't hurt to say it again :p

[readmedotexe]

It's so good to see that there are Quinn readers who understand that Daniel is not arguing that our society return to caves and to hunt with spears.  Thank you for taking the time to explain it.

[harbinger79]

I agree with most of what invaluable thinkers like Quinn and Jensen have to say about civilization. However, one wonders when we seek to "live the alternative" while the overall powerstructure remains in place, what prevents us from rendering ourselves serfs of another kind? Musn't the power structure be rendered null before such alternatives can actually be seen as empowering us?

[Feomathar007]

I agree, lets exploit the world for our own pleasure then press the destruct button.

I guess that is our future... :)

[noliketoregister]

More road maps, but no destinations.

No practical suggestions for what individuals can do.

Having meetings, reading, talking, accomplishes nothing, changes nothing.

Here's my meagre suggestions. The next time you get the opportunity to screw over your neighbour, don't do it. If you get the opportunity to help someone, avail yourself of it. Try to be sand in the machinery of the corporations.

[johndoooeee]

Sand in the machinery, I like that. I always thought of it as death from a thousand cuts.

[noliketoregister]

Since we're dealing with what Lewis Mumford coined the "mega-machine" then being sand is the phrase I prefer. Of course it is too late to defeat the machine, but we can still "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

[iaeruo]

noliketoregister..

its not too late to beat the machine. what the machine relies to function is our own tendecy towards technological thinking...

its a quesiton of consciousness - start there first. a technological thinking is what is responsible for current civilization.

it is technological thinking that chips the natural form away to create the cube.

a non-technological thinking does not absract the natural, therefore it is opposite to life in the machine.

[noliketoregister]

Lewis Mumford:

"But for those of us who have thrown off the myth of the machine, the next move is ours: for the gates of technocratic prison will open automatically; despite their rusty ancient hinges, as soon as we choose to walk out."

Written in 1964; too optimistic. We're all too mesmerized by our cell phones that can make pizza to advance change.

[readmedotexe]

I'm glad Daniel Quinn has not elected himself "Hero of the People." Ishmael is not a self-help book and was not intended to be. It's perfectly fine if Quinn's message is not what you're looking for, but it's isn't fine to hold it against him for failing to give you what was never promised in the first place.

[fr3thinker]

Because there was no storage of wealth back then in those hundreds of thousands of years ago. Food stuffs went off, there were no banks. And there were not 6 billion people on earth back then with the technology of now.

[reignofhope]

i agree fully, the taker civilization will only continue to thrive if it expands out of its blue sphere and uses its technology....damn the fools that dont support space exploration.

[fr3thinker]

In this world of massive population, it's now easy for individuals to hide their wrong doing (drug dealing / theft, cheating, etc) behind human rights and anonimity and therefore no longer be scorned nor chased out by the community. Thus, there is no longer in the west, for example, the notion of community because nobody knows anybody anyway and there are no community leaders.

[readmedotexe]

Were you answering another comment here?

[fr3thinker]

No, sorry, I think I was making my own comment. Thank you for replying because I'd forgotten this video entirely (somehow and I don't know how). So it was great to watch it again (well I must have watched it before!).

I've put the book on my book list after this second viewing - though as I said I can't remember the first viewing! Freddie Mercury says I'm going slightly mad.

[fr3thinker]

Looking back at my comment - it was related to how in "The Tribe" any "taker" will be ostracised. I just made a point that in present day "Taker" society, a taker will not only have the support of the prevailing system but will also be able remain pretty annonymous and will have the power of money anyway so that he/she can't really be ostracised. Same as in the smaller "Tribes" of those 100,000s of years, a murderer or rapist or theif couldn't hide because he/she was known.

[DrBuzz0]

Unless they murdered or raped someone in a neighboring tribe.. that was all okay. Or if they happened to be the cheif of the tribe, or son of the chief.. or perhaps some other local warlord.

[zakatak000]

Any of y'all read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan? Check it out!

[wildbillcleveland]

tribal societies lived in caves and died of curable disease because they lacked the wheel

tribalism leads to racism..war and famine

[Kyme72]

And now we live in boxes separated from each other and still die of curable and numerous disorders. Mental health issues an epidemic violence and war continues. While Tribal culture had its issues so does culture now... the problem now is that it is not sustainable. We are heading toward devastation.

[DrBuzz0]

So lets all go live in the woods instead.  You go first.

[nicolatwo]

Believe me, I will. And I love it.

[DrBuzz0]

Okay... and yet you're still posting on a website?  There ain't any computers in the woods. What ya waiting for? Go ahead.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[soylentgreenb]

"And now we live in boxes separated from each other..."

That's a choice. I didn't make it for you, you did.

"and still die of curable and numerous disorders."

Average lifespan of 75 instead of 30.

"Mental health issues an epidemic violence and war continues."

It's an epidemic because it's the first time in history anyone pays attention to mental health.

This is the most peaceful time in all of human history by far.

[DrBuzz0]

Actually mental illness was considerably more common in centuries past than many would think, although it isn't really reported in our history.

In a tribal/subsistence society the answer to mental illness was pretty simple: "Shut the hell up, suck it up and keep on hunting/gathering or go and starve to death"

If you were depressed you sucked it up and forced yourself to do backbreaking work anyway.

If you had schizophrenia they burned you at the stake.

[Feomathar007]

The tribal people have no work, when they are hungry, they just take or hunt what is already there waiting for them.

If a person is indeed deformed in a mental way, it does not matter for them.

As long as the person helps their tribal society.

If he is not capable to help he becomes an outcast and dies.

Its a perfectly build society that ensures a successful life for human species.

[soylentgreenb]

Tribal people live a nasty, brutish and short life. I wouldn't condemn anyone to such a miserable existance.

They are engaged in permanent war with neighbouring tribes. The rate of loss as a proportion of society is tens of times greater than the height of world war 2.

Rape, disease are all rampant. Average lifespan is 30 years of age.

They keep relatively well fed in normal times only because during the bad times huge swaths of society starve to death.

[Feomathar007]

They live the same life as do all the other animals.

I have never seen a tribal man/woman to whine about their life.

When we tried to take some tribe to our culture, the tribe commited suicide when they saw our way.

They are not at war. There would be just one tribe if they were at war (war means destroying the enemy). They have occasional tribal territory scrims making sure they stay in balance and diversity. You can not possibly use bushmen and world war 2 in the same sentence :P

PART 1

[Feomathar007]

They do not call it rape, nor do they take is as rape or punish it :P

They do not have that much disease, they are adapt to their enviroment.

"Average lifespan is 30 years of age. "

lifespan of a lion is 12-16 years.

The lifespan of a lion in captivity is 25 years...

The whole tribe is in it together good and bad times are good and bad for everyone of them, there is not a leader living on the expense of others.

"huge swaths of society starve to death. "

You mean the third world countries??

[tetekofa]

@soylentgreenb - you're a blithering idiot guy.

[tribalspacemonkey]

tribal societies lives in caves? lol you are so misinformed. read a book about tribes before you say something about their lifestyles. you are blinded by your own culture. and race has nothing to do with tribalism. tribalism is just a group of people making a living together.

[reignofhope]

im sure most ancient tribal cultures lived in caves at one point or another, whats wrong with it? a naturally ocurring refuge from the elements!

[alejandro15187]

mother culture strikes again! preach on!

[reignofhope]

they died of curable diseases because they lacked the wheel?????? i think a lack of penicillin had more to do with it but ok!! and its nationalism that leads to racism and war....WW II anyone! and famine is what keeps a population down naturaly...did you even read one of his books?

[arch3type]

We have racism, famine and war in Civilization, too.

[ReliableInsider]

Let's wait until we're extinct and then start working on a solution to the problem THEN. 

It will be easier to visualize the full scope of the problem at that point.

Today it's all still vague and fuzzy.

[mrfunnyman99]

I read Ishmael and it really opened my eyes.

[zezt]

Great great video!!! Like he says. people must UNDERSTAND about this. I have never yet read Ishmael, but it is next on my list. I am reading at the moment a really amazing book. I cannot recommend it enough. It is called UNNATURAL ORDER: The Roots of Our Destruction of Nature, Jim Mason

[pennilesscripple]

hey zezt thanks for the tip i just checked that book out and added it to my list...expensive though.... :(

[zezt]

well worth it ;)

[teewillis1981]

Daniel Quinn agreed to a phone interview with me. He is wonderfully brilliant and just as amazing as I had hoped for. Please read Ishmael if you haven't.

[Clayne]

I like it, but the green frame is annoying. I would much rather have a plain screen with a slightly larger picture...

[ooooll0lloooo]

I wish I was brave enough to act on this man's ideas.

[nukewaste]

It's hard to take the first step, but I've started 'preaching' it where I find people interested. I've been surprised by how readily other people have been to listen. It's really true that a lot of people are simply waiting to hear a way that works.

[pennilesscripple]

yes that's been my experience as well, nw

people come alive when they engage in this conversation...they've been waiting for it

everyone seems to think they are the only ones who can't figure out a way to feel at home in this culture, when the truth is none of us can because it is flawed at the core, and forces us into a life that goes against our basic nature, doesn't fulfill our basic human needs, and makes us grab after a wide variety of false, unfulfilling needs

[BenjiAYOU]

I love his writings but sometimes he is too liberal for my taste. However, I am just supprised that Ishmael hasnt become an obligatory book in schools!

[pennilesscripple]

are you kidding me? it's pretty obvious why it's not in the schools. you want the next generation following their souls instead of willingly being a cog in the machine? what would happen to our glorious economy?

[BenjiAYOU]

Yeah you are right!......

[pennilesscripple]

would love to be made wrong....

[foolishyeti]

you can really see in this video how much difficulty Quinn does at thinking on the spot...

[jcc152509]

If you knew more about him, you would realize your comment is irrelevant. The dude is genuine, not someone trying to sway you into agreeing with him.

[ooooll0lloooo]

What? How is my comment irrelevant?

[teewillis1981]

No not the case. He is wonderfully articulate. He actually takes the time to think about what he is saying, he wants to make sure that he is being clear.

[zakatak000]

'Ishmael' should be required reading in schools.

[Kosmiker]

You have my vote!

[pennilesscripple]

yep

[fegu]

Why is there only a part of the interview? Who was interviewing? When? Where?

[redpharmacist]

It's called editing! ;-) No, seriously, it's part of a larger documentary that's in the works. Interviewed Portland, Oregon in October 2005.

[teewillis1981]

LOL I spoke with Daniel Quinn about this video and this upcoming documentary. He had absolutely no clue what I was talking about! LOL

[Kyme72]

Great I look forward to it.

[metrospider]

Quinn is God

[zzz33333]

... i guess so

[Clayne]

yeah..what?