everyone thinks daniel quinn is this great guy.... i think he's a total asshole. he denies the very existence of his own children. yeah - he's smart. but he's a total jerk.
@withamgeo that's an anomaly, hunger will grow with the population like Quinn said due to the sad fact we are not only just growing food to grow people, we are doing it in order to have cheaper and cheaper labor(obviously a completely immoral game, and one that is extremely dangerous which is why our military budget keeps on growing)
@PickinNgrinin huh, you're right, Daniel Quinn was wrong. world hunger dropped for the first time in 15 years last year. It's only 925 million according to the UN. Thanks for that. nytimes.com/2010/09/15/world/15food.html
@mavricovich I don't know what my threshold is, but I think that if food runs low it will happen slowly, and the population will adjust. Sure, there will be suffering, but this "crisis" is not going to hit us over night and be one big catastrophic event. Everything will balance itself out. Don't worry about it. You did not come to this conclusion that the world is overpopulated yourself--mostly likely you heard it mentioned from somewhere, and that somewhere is most likely politicians.
Without agriculture, who would've made your glasses, shirt, couch, plastic jesus, etc.? No one. Because everyone would be scrounging for food. Stop your fucking babbling.
You people know that first-world population growth is stabilizing or even going into decline, right? Malthus was wrong, and Quinn follows him. Their philosophies apply well to the third-world, but fail terribly elsewhere.
@giantsnark That argument is nothing more than a red herring. The fact that a the population is growing at a faster rate in some places than others is beside the point. The point is that the human population is steadily growing because we're steadily increasing food production. The reason growth rates differ in developed and undeveloped nations has nothing to do with food availability. It has to do with family economics, in that, in developed nations, having a multiplicity of children is...
@shyshadeofwater Exactly. It's family economics. Food is not the root problem, and Malthusian principles utterly fail to account for it, and so they can't explain the first world. It is a change in family economics which stops population growth - not starvation.
You're at least two decades out of date, and this entire train of thought is now demonstrably wrong.
@giantsnark You seem to be pointing to the argument that when currently underdeveloped nations reach our level of prosperity (which would change their family economics tremendously), their growth rates are likely to go down just way ours has.
I'll have to send you a message to refute this fantasy, as it takes more than a few hundred characters. ;p
@giantsnark (cont) a burden, no matter how abundant food is, whereas in undeveloped nations it's a blessing, no matter how scarce food is. In developed nations it costs a lot of money to raise children and they're not expected to contribute anything to family income. In undeveloped nations, it costs little to raise children adn they generally contribute a lot to family income.
Also, the U.S. doesn't consume all the food it produces, it exports huge amounts of it. Since this food isn't being...
@giantsnark (cont) turned into human biomass in the U.S., it's being turned into human biomass in other parts of the world. In effect, it's the 1st-world farmers who are fueling the 3rd-world population explosion. Have you not seen the images of the UN workers spreading food among hungry crowds? Have you not seen Sally Struthers asking us to support children that are starving by sending money (food) to them? They cannot produce enough food because they are exceeding their local carrying...
@giantsnark (cont) Their land cannot support that many animals. It wouldn't matter if they were elephants, rats, beetles, or humans. If we send more resources, we will have more animals.
This is simply more swatting at the symptoms of our system's shortfalls. It's a ludicrous idea. Seems like an answer from a very narrow view of the world, perhaps.
@CaptainDummyTalk your "This is simply more swatting at the symptoms" and "Seems like an answer from a very narrow view of the world" don't have any proff which means the comment is pointless.
anarchism is the only solution for survival when u look at where we are at . a technocratic oligarchy that wants to micro-chip the population, you must get away from the beast system or you will become a clone. i agree with you whole-heartedly
freemasons run the world. industrial capitalism is a mere tool in this esoteric techno-cratic future state. saying we need to be primitive is not going to help as much as it is an ideal solution. anarchy is the only answer at this point, if you take a look around this world is psychotic
There has never been an anarchy that worked. What we are doing also doesn't work. Tribalism is the only thing we KNOW works, and thats why Quinn talks about it. The reason he is talking about this right now, is because unfortunately for us, tribalism won't work with 6 billion+ people around.
This is the end result of the proliferation of the scarcity based economic model. Mass production is the issue and while not entirely to blame the lack of control over it is. Decreasing food production will have no better effect this all plays out to energy distribution. The only way to fix this is to represent the energy that we a distributing more efficiently. Of course this problem will never go away as it is built into the mechanics of nature itself, though it maybe reined in somewhat.
Are people made out of electric, nuclear, or any other kind of power? No. People are made out of food and nothing else. Energy distribution has nothing to do with population. It's that simple. How would decreasing food production not work? People HAVE have food. Less food, less people.
Speaking for myself, I am tired of our species always growing more people. Like a Billionaire, there never is enough money and for humanity there never is too many people.
@sombora Well you must not live in the US where unemployment goes up daily. My wife's workplaced just announced cuts, she made it but what about the next round.
I'm no Math expert but the equation seems simple enough to me. To many people, not enough jobs.
That is the main Political crisis in the US now, Unemployment. What happens when the other dominoes start to wobble and tip over, energy, food, water.
When your dying of thirst will you still be convinced population is not a problem?
@sombora So the world isn't overpopulated when looked through the lens of communism or any other economic system? The earth can only support 9-12 billion humans, living the way we do. The fact that we're about 7 means nothing to you?
Our growing population has greatly exacerbated a process of destruction, wiping out 100's of species a day, eating up nonrenewable resources. What we're doing is playing Jenga, constantly taking out blocks of our ecological system, making it unstable and fragile.
@shyshadeofwater First, I'm not a scientist or a demographer, so I have no Idea how many people this planet can hold, and neither do you or those so called "experts" who rely on mathematical means. I agree that we are mistreating the world, and I agree that a smaller, sustainable population is desirable. Do you know anything about the extended versus the nuclear family, and how the nuclear family is the standard family structure of capitalism? . . . continue . . .
@sombora Do you know that the nuclear family (Father-Mother-Children) proliferates much faster than the extended family. Did you know that prior to western invasion, all indigenous cultures had an extended family structure in place, where resources and home was shared within the community? Do you know that because western cultures desire a man and women to have their own home and plot of land--characteristic of nuclear family structure-- that more resources and space is required?
@sombora Yes, I do know those things. You're describing a difference between what Quinn calls "Takers"(our culture) and "Leavers"(tribal/indigenous peoples). These are very basic, introductory subjects in Quinn's books, so yes, I know a lot about this subject. It seems if you'd actually read Quinn's books, you'd agree with him a lot more than you think.
I won't argue about your comment about scientists, demographers, "experts" and mathematical means because you're clearly beyond reason.
@shyshadeofwater I've actually read his book, and his theory of of population is legit. I just don't hold him up as the supreme demographic god as you do. I look at other things as well. And I've based my argument on capitalism, what do you have to base yours other than Quinn's.
As for the starvation problem, as a species we are severly over populated, far beyond our natural limit.
the starvation problem is something that cannot be dealt with so easily, unless our population decrease to natural size, there will always be starvation.
The cold war metaphore that Quinn used in this video, is basicly saying this: people are starving, lets grow more food, when they are not starving, they will populate, and again we will have starvation. a race against food.
But those tribal cultures, did reproduce and went through the evolutionary levels that we did since 10 thousand years ago, although they did not grow beyond their natural limit, and even decreased because of us, they are not less evolved in natural terms.
our culture is based on principles that people think are unbreakable, principle that are mistaken as our nature, and not the nature of our culture, Quinn simply suggests that there are other ways to exist, maybe even better, not just one.
@Alfrunk You are not thinking very critically. Why would it matter where you live? This is a global problem. And there is nothing wrong with storing food in any sense of the word. He is only talking about totalitarian agriculture, which is what our culture practices the world over. And it is a scary thing.
Although I agree with your statements that every creatures mind is slowly going through a phase of evolution, it does not mean that totalitarian agriculture is a part of that phase, its just a concept which human being have based their culture upon, if it was indeed a part of the evolution, then why is there still (altough very few) tribal cultures? the reason they did not prosper as well as our culture is because we in fact wiped most of them out in order for our increasing culture to strive.
I agree with "piebob" even though his writting is unpolished, i still reconize his points and agree with them. Daniel Quinn dosent realize that totalitarian agriculture was simply a phase in the evolution of the mind, the next phase could be for the better like being able to look back on situations like hes doin now and deciding if its for the better or the worst. Ultimatley I think us humans point in life is to reach the full evalution of our mind like Socrates, Buddha and Jesus accomplished.
His writting is unpolished eh?? Eeeh ha hee ha heee!
But I guess that's the best you can get from someone who believes in "the evolution of the mind" as some sort of fast process that didn't take millions of years.
Anyway, I'll be waiting for large roman numerals to fall from the sky to indicate that we're in the "next phase."
It certainly is unpolished. There's really no debate about that. Plus, he is a hypocrite. Does he store food? Does he hunt new food each day? Hell no. That's for people other than him. Disgusting.
i think you might be missing the point and may be jumping to conclusions, he never tells ppl to start living like that or to not grow food, he's making an observation, the same way you would approach anything else in the world that isn't working properly
Although I respect Daniel Quinns point i dont exactly agree with him. while watching this video i got the impression that he tought of totalitarian agriculture as a negative ipact on human. In my opinion it was simply an evalutionary trick that allowed a certian few to thrive in there inviorment. This evolution of the mind is arguably negative yet arguable possitive towarads our species surviving but in my opinion evalution is keyto survival and surviving as a functional system,earth
The whole point in what Quinn is saying is that we are THRIVING at the EXPENSE of our environment. Totalitarian agriculture will arguably lead us to our very own extinction. How can that not be negative? Animal species don't eliminate the very environment they live in, or else they'll die.
Quinn is not talking about basic agriculture. He is talking about the movement for monopolies on agriculture. In the US, corporations have been permitted to patten seeds and have thus been able to control who uses them, who makes money and who does not eat. The system is about money rather than food. Historically, that was not the case. Food was about food.
Pazomblez, how is encouraging growth of food we eat not agriculture??
If you really want to understand how food is conclusively linked to population, you should read The Story of B (by Daniel Quinn). Draw your own conclusions after reading his book.
It suffices to say: It is a law that a species grows with the abundance of food and declines in its absence. Sadly, with agriculture we got access to uncontrolled amount of food and amazing powers of denial to the consequence of runaway population.
Quinn seems to be just playing semantics here (at least in the first bit). What he refers to as agriculture (i.e. simply encouraging growth of foods we eat) is horticulture, not agriculture. At least if you take the typical texbook anthropological definitions as correct. Also, 'totalitarian agriculture' is agriculture.
It is to my understanding that horticulture is small scale agriculture that does not include live stock or the economic aspect of agriculture. Either way, agriculture and totalitarian agriculture are indeed similar yet very different. Totalitarian agriculturist practice the destruction of entire ecosystems to ensure their specific crop's wellfare. While agriculturalist cultivate food within the allocations provided by their ecosystem (I.E. no pesticides).
It doesn't make sense historically. when a group has access to only a certain amount of food, they keep their population at a level that can be fed by that amount. Native American tribes did not have condoms and birthcontrol. The Inuit did not have birthcontrol. The Bushmen did not have birthcontrol. Any anthro teachers or students out there?
Small groups having acces to a certain amount of food, to keep theri lifestyle, DO have birth control.
Be it by abortion (not in a hospital really, but by a man pushing with his knees into a woman until her vagina bleeds, for example) infanticide, not taking care well of some of the new born on purpose, or by keeping lactation until the kid is like 3 or 4 years old, so they don't have kids that often.
my understanding is that they used medicinal plants as contraceptives and abortifactants. and the decisions to do this were made by the women. they didn't need to use protection otherwise since STIs were pretty much non existent.
and yes as someone else said, infanticide is sometimes practiced.
why would the population of starving people increase according to this theory of food production. I mean, I know it's true that if you increase the carrying capacity of the land there is a direct increase in population, but why do starving people have so many children?
@tinashriller Because of the fact that most of the food being produced only goes to certain parts of the overall population, i.e. those with the means to buy, trade for or otherwise get the food. A result of the way things work is that more and more people end up lacking the means to get the food.
As a reaction to starvation and severe poverty, people are, by instinct, driven to reproduce in order to secure their kinds survival. That is atleast a logical explanation.
they have many children because many of these starving people are poor and dont have access to condoms and other birth control "devices". So sex comes into play and babies come out
actually the dawn of time is a completely human concept, so the agricultural revolution came, and then as humans developed ways to calculate time, that would have to be the dawn of time surely...
If i am choosing between "freedom in the wilderness" full of predators and mosquitoes, or a "culture of control" that comes with good cuisine and a BMW: bring on Big Brother!
I think you were having a contest with yourself to see how many assumptions you could make about my beliefs.
I don't think anyone here is making the claim that the dawn of time and the agricultural revolution are synonymous? The claim I would like to make, however, is that starvation HAS been a problem. I imagine the underlying motivation behind controlling agriculture was that people were hungry--i.e. that starvation existed. Problem: I don't have enough food. Light bulb: I shall grow my food!
but if people were starving because there is so little food, how do you expect people grew something out of nothing? if the food disappeared, they couldn't possibly grow food in time out of a few seeds lying around... i think a more plausible claim is that starvation came out of totalitarian agriculture, where there was a large population built off of this extra food, and when a drought/famine hit, the food decreased alarmingly, and thus mass starving..
i would have to disagree with your last statment... im not sure what the motivation behind controlling agriculture was but i dont think it was because people were starving... if your starving you dont have time to wait for food to grow... you would be dead before you were able to eat it
Now that IS a good point. At the same time, however, I would think that any motivation for controlling agriculture would have to come from a desire to make more, or at least try and bring some stability to the supply of food (although farmers know that there is no such thing as a certainty for production levels). If we really had lived in the "Garden of Eden" (in all its plenty) then we wouldn't have been inclined towards the "forbidden fruit" of agriculture.
Even if agriculture was derived from a "want" and not a "need," it still suggests that our pre-agricultural state left something to be desired: food. Hence, man assumes the plow. I admit this is speculative--generally the opinions and theories we pass as truth can be boiled down to a few underlying assumptions. You dig?
The comment about a Dicken's character was in response to Stange72's statement about starvation not being such a bad thing, because the population would go down.
By the way if you watched Disney's "A Christmas Carol" then you should recall the line by SCROOGE "If they are going to die then they better hurry up and do it, and decrease the surplus population." Lot of Scrooges around here ; )
A Lot of people making comments here are missing the obvious, There doesn't have to be mass die outs, and millions are already suffering. Starting to decrease food production on a global scale will have the only logical effect: it will slow down and eventually reverse population growth.
Aid doesn't fucing help. Nations have to build their own infrastructure not based on limitless expansion and irresponsible "use" of materials.
Read Quinn's books, for a start, see what he means by "food race"
(cont'd) people have been indoctrinated with since they were 2 or 3 years old---expect a tongue-lashing. People will bitch and moan about this global socio-economic system all day long, but when you tell them a TRUE SACRIFICE is required dismantle the human ego, then fear produces "scientific" rebuttals. The New York blackout of 2003 showed me the length of dependency we've all been subjected to. I'm not a saint, neither does Quinn claim to be. But he's saying are you REALLY willing??
I totally agree with poster "HairSquared". I've been teaching for years (but, could clearly switch the focus to re-educating adults, should people close their legs and stop over-reproducing). When you go against the holy grail of this society----religion--agriculture--REPRODUCTION---expect people to spew venom. Daniel Quinn's detractors are EXACTLY the type of arrogant people he had pegged in his book "The Story of B". If you are not perpetuating the GREAT MYTHS (continued...)
You MUST be willing to accept the notion that the chance of Mr. Quinn being onto something, has relatively the same chance as any other belief system. You cannot take "Ishmael" as THE word. It is merely a challenge to you to see the world around you through a different prism, and not through the collective conditioning, or egoic self.
Anyone fooled by this childish charlatan is a sad individual indeed. Some sheep said this nonsense was based on peer reviewed academic journals - huh? Ishmael didn't have any annotations.
I have that oinion because, again, "ISHMAEL" DID NOT HAVE ANY CITATIONS TO BACK UP ANY OF ITS POINTS. It's just "one man's opinion" - it's not based on any evidence. The population explosion argument went out the window years ago. None of what people predicted has come true. In the 70's they were saying we'd all be starving by the year 2000, iirc. Quinn must not believe his own philosophy, as I don't see him living in the forest with Bwana, hunting for food and rejecting modernity.
FYI - YouTube isn't a peer reviewed site - it's for entertainment. I guess you didn't understand that? Furthermore, I am not writing books telling people how to live and criticizing western civilization based on opinion presented as fact, as Quinn is. Glad I could clear that up for you. By the way, don't be afraid of those dusty old books- read one sometime!
this is as much of a straw man response as you make out his points to be. why don't you cite for us the reasons your philosophy of academic understanding is valid? It is not an absolute value. it is academic conditioning which keeps you in line and unwilling to even ponder anything that does not fit within academic dogma.(you are running an imposed mental program). you are attemptiing to impose a cultural value, not a truth.
Yeah you're right...what have academics, people in science, statistics, anthropology, sociology or biology ever gotten right? They're just a bunch of mind-numbed morons! Thank god daniel quinn and his ape have arrived to save us. I'm open minded - but quinn just doesn't sell me on his points. I'm willing to consider it further - but I just don't think I could completely embrace what he's claiming. ESPECIALLY since he doesn't practice what he preaches - that's the most telling thing to me.
your words lead me to believe that you tare most likely not actually that familiar with his work and the ideas he actually puts forth if you do not believe he lives by them.
he categorically states in his work that the concept is not for everyone to live in teh way he puts forth, but that the rest of the society has no right to stop them from doing so.
His ideas are in line with evolutionary diversity and survival strategy for a species. we should not all live in the same emic reality.
That is prepostorus. Quinn is simply stating facts. It is true that every year there is more food produced and it is true that every year there are more people. However it is not true that quinns philosophy is about living in forests. You are making assumptions about that. I challenge you to find anything in his texts that says that.
Myth #8: Overpopulation is the chief cause of poverty. Problems are almost always due to bad economic policy. The Ethiopian famine, for instance, was caused by its government confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms.
Myth #7: Overpopulation is threatening the worlds food supply. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all areas.
Myth #6: Many plants and animals are disappearing because of the growth in human numbers. This claim has no scientific data whatsoever to support it. Actually, some species such as blue whales, spotted owls, and black footed ferrets have been found to be more numerous than was once thought.
Myth #5: Air pollution is the result of overpopulation, and acid rain, a byproduct of air pollution, is destroying lakes, rivers, and forests. Actually in the US, air pollution is declining significantly. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program recently reported no widespread forest or crop damage in the US related to acid rain.
Myth #4: The worlds forests are disappearing because of overpopulation. In fact, annual forest growth today is more than 3.5x what it was in 1920. Now, trees are growing 33% faster than they are being cut.
I am curious as to where this information comes from. Could you please give a citation as to where you got this data? I have had students say the same (oddly enough, their parents all worked together in a clear-cutting lumber business) statistics to me and nobody (child, parent or businessman) has ever been able to tell me where these numbers actually come from other than the Bush white house press department.
Myth #3: Overpopulation causes ozone depletion. Actually theres enough information here for a whole column, but S. Fred Singer(atmospheric physicist) calls the ozone scare a misuse of science.
Myth #2: Overpopulation is Causing Global Warming. In fact, 79 scientists issued the Leipzig Declaration saying there does not exist today a general scientific consensus aboutgreenhouse warming. Its interesting that many respected climatologists vigorously dispute a global warming danger.
Myth #1: Population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet. In fact, even though we cluster together to exchange goods and services, humans occupy only 1-3% of the earths land surface. If you allotted 1250 ft2 to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. But forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992, the World Bank predicted 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the UN predicted 9 billion.
Ok, you need to check your math and your common sense. While you say that we only occupy 1-3% of the earth's land surface, what about the areas changed and fragmented due to agriculture, business, energy production, pollution, etc, etc, etc? Our footprint extends beyond where we live. If you grew up in areas destroyed by industry like I did, you might understand this. Also, the reason why our population is falling is mainly due to the effects of pollution on our reproductive systems.
"Also, the reason why our population is falling is mainly due to the effects of pollution on our reproductive systems. "
It's because women are given birth control and the ability to refuse to be continually raped by their husbands. It's because people don't need children to toil as slaves on their farm anymore.
I have met many like you and you are the problem entirely. There is no such thing as "pseudoscience", there is science and there is everything else. What Mr. Quinn is speaking about falls under the category of information taken from peer-reviewed scientific-based research.
The entire problem is not that people are starving and should be fed, the problem is that we need less people. Actually try to think about the problem and become part of the solution and stop being part of the problem.
You also have to remember that abortions and other forms of population control were stopped in most areas where starvation occurs due to the acts of "good christians" who had absolutely no sense as to why those things might be necessary. Also, I agree that we do have a gigantic surplus of food. This is why we still have too many families having too many despicable little monsters (sorry, I am a teacher) and too many farmers being paid NOT to grow food.
I don't see why mass starvation is a "bad thing". I mean, sure, it would suck for those people, but, if there are too many individuals in a population and insufficient resources to support that population, then animals (people) will starve and the population goes down. Problem solved.
But the problem with that is people in starving countries have many children in hopes that one or two survive, therefore the population doesn't go down, instead it goes up. Not to mention that starvation has a problem since the dawn of time.
Well, if they are deliberately, bringing children into poverty, and keep reproducing even after some of their children die, then they deserve all the suffering that comes their way.
So the only people who deserve to reproduce are those fortunate enough to have been born in a western country? Or am I misunderstanding your logic? Lucky for you to be one of the lucky minority.
I have news for you. I do not have any children, by choice. Furthermore, the global south is out reproducing the global north many times over. It's not a question of "deserving". They have already done it . What they deserve is the consequences of their actions. Plus, we don't have the resources to help them. We are broke. The earth's resources are nearly exhausted. When the world's leading scientists like David Pemintal said we were living unstainabley, what do you think they meant?
Yes, I favor cutting off food aid, or at least, linking it to a low birth rate rquirement. If we don't do this soon, we are going to have hell on earth. I do not want to see a modern global die-off similar to the Easter Island die-off.
What will be will be. Enjoy it while you got it. I have no vested interest in the future of this planet or our speices. The sum of my chemical composition will move on soon enough. Don't fret.
I read the second one. You all live in a fuckin fantasy world. We're not going back until we're forced back, at which point the resource base will be even more assfucked then it is now. Enjoy plenty while it's here. It's actually really nice. And besides, living in the woods would be fucking boring. We all clearly enjoy youtube after all.. haha
First of all, starvation has not been a problem since the start of time. It has been a problem since the agricultural revolution. The dawn of time and the agricultural revolution are not synonymous, but are actually separated by billions of years. Starvation is a response to the decision to stop controlling the birthrate of a population, whether taken voluntarily or forced. This arose with the idea that "our way is the one right way," idea of farming grains which got us kicked out of eden.
Agree. Everybody talking about 'psychosis' etc. is wrong. This is a natural process. We can still do something about it, but even if we don't, why judge humanity? This is all NATURAL.
Peak theorists often disagree with each other. I've never read 'Ishmael', only because I heard from someone that it extols the virtues of primitiveness over civilization, which is another example of this tendency to tell people what they want to hear. That someone was John Michael Greer BTW -- check him out.
Why is it "murder" to kill a person but not to kill another animal? Why are humans valued over other animals, since there is no difference between us?
Population growth is indeed caused by increased food supply. When poor countries run into famine due to overpopulation, they know that "good christians" (if there is such a thing) can't sit by and see pictures of starving children on the telly, so they know food is coming, so they don't stop having children. (cont'd below)
And yet, we are tasty food to several species, most notably, the lion, the polar bear, the grizzly bear and others. We are animals too; we eat others and, in turn, get eaten by other animals. I, personally, have no problem with people getting eaten here and there. I think its kind of funny, like that idiot that tried to read bible verses to a pride of lions in a zoo. Yay, Darwin Awards!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why not stop feeding the filthy foundations that fund such wrong science and phony authors, and return the money to the treasury, where it belongs.
A 10% cut from the foundation money should be enough to launch an independent study to debunk the growing population myth. ( Which has actually started to decrease )
Once done with this, put Maurice Strong and the Rothshilds behind Bars ( where they belong )
Sorry, but you wear your beliefs and ignorance like a badge & are proud of your stupidity. I have nothing to say to you since you have nothing intelligent to offer the conversation & you are obviously unwilling to listen to anything intelligent that doesn't fit your belief that the earth belongs to you and that you should be allowed to do whatever you wish. Keep acting like a spoiled 2-year-old who got spanked for burning ants with a magnifying glass & see how far your line of thinking takes us.
And for the record, I have read Daniel Quinn, Derek Jensen, and other similar authors. For a year or so I actually DID believe in what they had to say (and, to some degree, still do). However, I choose to place my faith in human innovation to overcome the problems we produce. You call it "ignorance," I call it a decision. And yes, maybe I did arrive at it because I am too spoiled to take up the "leaver" lifestyle--like the other "2-year-olds" on Youtube not in the woods somewhere.
Your central conceit is betrayed by what you write. You wrote that, "For a year or so I actually DID believe.." The use of the verb "believe" is where I have problems. Beliefs are technically the opposite of rational thought. If you were to approach the problem rationally and without belief, then it makes a whole lot more sense. The moment you allow belief into the equation, rational thought goes out the window, just look at Sarah Palin or, worse yet, Ronald Reagan or George Bush (W or HW).
Svrew you fat boy get off the set, we dont own anything, animals have valubal lives too, all animals have there roll, we are all important nothing belongs to us, EVERYTHING belongs to God, screw you!
SCREW YOU FAT BOY!, get off the set, you dont know nothing, we dont onw anything animals have there play in life to, so screw you all animals are valubal you itit, nothing belongs to us it belongs to God,...
I very much enjoyed reading Ishmael, and trying to grasp your vision through the eyes of Mother Culture is always something interesting to explore. However, if man is subject to the laws of nature like all other creatures, and history did not end with Man like it didn't end with Jellyfish, then there is no reason to stem our growth. We are simply another step in the chain of evolution, and it is our industry + agriculture that will evolve into the next important critter.
Quinn's books are awesome. I highly recommend them to all viewers. Start with "Ishmael" and then "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", "Beyond Civilization", "After Dachua", "Work, Work, Work", etc., etc.
They will change how you view our problems and the list of real solutions.
Ishmael was a wonderful read, may i suggest you to read The Last Independent By Vince Marcanti i sure you will love it if you like quinn
thewisevoice 5 days ago
Anyone here ever see any of the Zeitgeist movies. If you like Daniel Quinn you may like the Zeitgeist movies.
misterysylver 2 weeks ago
damnit, I was looking for dan quin, the crazy mma stevia guy
1Pantikian 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Like anyone gives a shit about some old guy talkin about hunger.Just sayin.
thexninja666 10 months ago
@thexninja666 [don't feed the troll]
TheSittingArchitect 8 months ago
This is exactly what Israelis think when they first stepped on Palestinian land.
MeestaBojangles 11 months ago
Play the violin on all the hungry peoples of the worlds exquisite pussy's, stevias going global, my nigga.
milkygear 1 year ago 11
@milkygear That is I think the most profound statement I have seen in years . Bravo !
What a contribution to the post .
homVTV 2 weeks ago
Holy shit he was alot older looking off Stevia.
QuinnMeth 1 year ago 2
everyone thinks daniel quinn is this great guy.... i think he's a total asshole. he denies the very existence of his own children. yeah - he's smart. but he's a total jerk.
Avonaliza 1 year ago
@Avonaliza Hey, you're not the only one.
amazingwave 7 months ago
@withamgeo that's an anomaly, hunger will grow with the population like Quinn said due to the sad fact we are not only just growing food to grow people, we are doing it in order to have cheaper and cheaper labor(obviously a completely immoral game, and one that is extremely dangerous which is why our military budget keeps on growing)
PtAltmVansanTarr 1 year ago
This video should be titled speculation on world hunger. Cause none of what he said is fact.
PickinNgrinin 1 year ago
@PickinNgrinin huh, you're right, Daniel Quinn was wrong. world hunger dropped for the first time in 15 years last year. It's only 925 million according to the UN. Thanks for that. nytimes.com/2010/09/15/world/15food.html
withamgeo 1 year ago
Ishmael is my favorite book of all time.
mrfunnyman99 1 year ago
@mavricovich I don't know what my threshold is, but I think that if food runs low it will happen slowly, and the population will adjust. Sure, there will be suffering, but this "crisis" is not going to hit us over night and be one big catastrophic event. Everything will balance itself out. Don't worry about it. You did not come to this conclusion that the world is overpopulated yourself--mostly likely you heard it mentioned from somewhere, and that somewhere is most likely politicians.
sombora 1 year ago
Without agriculture, who would've made your glasses, shirt, couch, plastic jesus, etc.? No one. Because everyone would be scrounging for food. Stop your fucking babbling.
KindOFATalkShow 1 year ago
@KindOFATalkShow Clearly haven't read any of his books.
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
things either come from Yahweh or from devil....
it's either the Way of Yahweh or the ways of satan.....
YAHWEHisperfect 1 year ago
You people know that first-world population growth is stabilizing or even going into decline, right? Malthus was wrong, and Quinn follows him. Their philosophies apply well to the third-world, but fail terribly elsewhere.
giantsnark 1 year ago
@giantsnark That argument is nothing more than a red herring. The fact that a the population is growing at a faster rate in some places than others is beside the point. The point is that the human population is steadily growing because we're steadily increasing food production. The reason growth rates differ in developed and undeveloped nations has nothing to do with food availability. It has to do with family economics, in that, in developed nations, having a multiplicity of children is...
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
@shyshadeofwater Exactly. It's family economics. Food is not the root problem, and Malthusian principles utterly fail to account for it, and so they can't explain the first world. It is a change in family economics which stops population growth - not starvation.
You're at least two decades out of date, and this entire train of thought is now demonstrably wrong.
giantsnark 1 year ago
@giantsnark You seem to be pointing to the argument that when currently underdeveloped nations reach our level of prosperity (which would change their family economics tremendously), their growth rates are likely to go down just way ours has.
I'll have to send you a message to refute this fantasy, as it takes more than a few hundred characters. ;p
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
@giantsnark (cont) a burden, no matter how abundant food is, whereas in undeveloped nations it's a blessing, no matter how scarce food is. In developed nations it costs a lot of money to raise children and they're not expected to contribute anything to family income. In undeveloped nations, it costs little to raise children adn they generally contribute a lot to family income.
Also, the U.S. doesn't consume all the food it produces, it exports huge amounts of it. Since this food isn't being...
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
@giantsnark (cont) turned into human biomass in the U.S., it's being turned into human biomass in other parts of the world. In effect, it's the 1st-world farmers who are fueling the 3rd-world population explosion. Have you not seen the images of the UN workers spreading food among hungry crowds? Have you not seen Sally Struthers asking us to support children that are starving by sending money (food) to them? They cannot produce enough food because they are exceeding their local carrying...
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
@giantsnark (cont) Their land cannot support that many animals. It wouldn't matter if they were elephants, rats, beetles, or humans. If we send more resources, we will have more animals.
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
i was hoping u were going to read the book :D
sheismystar 1 year ago
Ishmael was such a good book it taught me so much and made me look at the world with a new perspective. Thank you Daniel Quinn
ThisIsNarnia1 1 year ago 5
stevia will end world hunger. just ask mitch maryland.
DankWin 1 year ago
This is simply more swatting at the symptoms of our system's shortfalls. It's a ludicrous idea. Seems like an answer from a very narrow view of the world, perhaps.
CaptainDummyTalk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaptainDummyTalk your "This is simply more swatting at the symptoms" and "Seems like an answer from a very narrow view of the world" don't have any proff which means the comment is pointless.
atroxanimi77 1 year ago
Its like an out of control fire
Hegemonia20 1 year ago
its the way we were meant to live, free of the money masters, i know how it sounds but its because I love humanity not because I want followers
stett99 1 year ago
anarchism is the only solution for survival when u look at where we are at . a technocratic oligarchy that wants to micro-chip the population, you must get away from the beast system or you will become a clone. i agree with you whole-heartedly
stett99 1 year ago
@stett99 come on now, how can you speak in absolutes, 'anarchism is the only solution' ? that implies one right way for everyone to live
krose12414 1 year ago
freemasons run the world. industrial capitalism is a mere tool in this esoteric techno-cratic future state. saying we need to be primitive is not going to help as much as it is an ideal solution. anarchy is the only answer at this point, if you take a look around this world is psychotic
stett99 1 year ago
There has never been an anarchy that worked. What we are doing also doesn't work. Tribalism is the only thing we KNOW works, and thats why Quinn talks about it. The reason he is talking about this right now, is because unfortunately for us, tribalism won't work with 6 billion+ people around.
PercysPants 1 year ago
@PercysPants Tribalism might work to some extent, besides we are inventive, im sure there are ways of living sustainable.. :)
Feomathar007 1 year ago
@stett99 What would anarchy solve?
Psychotic in what way?
Feomathar007 1 year ago
This is the end result of the proliferation of the scarcity based economic model. Mass production is the issue and while not entirely to blame the lack of control over it is. Decreasing food production will have no better effect this all plays out to energy distribution. The only way to fix this is to represent the energy that we a distributing more efficiently. Of course this problem will never go away as it is built into the mechanics of nature itself, though it maybe reined in somewhat.
humpherykynaston 1 year ago
Are people made out of electric, nuclear, or any other kind of power? No. People are made out of food and nothing else. Energy distribution has nothing to do with population. It's that simple. How would decreasing food production not work? People HAVE have food. Less food, less people.
PercysPants 1 year ago
Speaking for myself, I am tired of our species always growing more people. Like a Billionaire, there never is enough money and for humanity there never is too many people.
valhala56 1 year ago 14
@valhala56 I don't think the world is overpopulated
sombora 1 year ago
@sombora Well you must not live in the US where unemployment goes up daily. My wife's workplaced just announced cuts, she made it but what about the next round.
I'm no Math expert but the equation seems simple enough to me. To many people, not enough jobs.
That is the main Political crisis in the US now, Unemployment. What happens when the other dominoes start to wobble and tip over, energy, food, water.
When your dying of thirst will you still be convinced population is not a problem?
valhala56 1 year ago
@valhala56 I live in the U.S. . . . but I don't live in fear.
sombora 1 year ago
@sombora Good for you.
valhala56 1 year ago
@sombora May I ask why you feel the world isn't overpopulated?
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
@shyshadeofwater It's only overpopulated when you look at the world through the lens of capitalism.
sombora 1 year ago
@sombora So the world isn't overpopulated when looked through the lens of communism or any other economic system? The earth can only support 9-12 billion humans, living the way we do. The fact that we're about 7 means nothing to you?
Our growing population has greatly exacerbated a process of destruction, wiping out 100's of species a day, eating up nonrenewable resources. What we're doing is playing Jenga, constantly taking out blocks of our ecological system, making it unstable and fragile.
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
@shyshadeofwater First, I'm not a scientist or a demographer, so I have no Idea how many people this planet can hold, and neither do you or those so called "experts" who rely on mathematical means. I agree that we are mistreating the world, and I agree that a smaller, sustainable population is desirable. Do you know anything about the extended versus the nuclear family, and how the nuclear family is the standard family structure of capitalism? . . . continue . . .
sombora 1 year ago
Comment removed
sombora 1 year ago
@sombora
@sombora Do you know that the nuclear family (Father-Mother-Children) proliferates much faster than the extended family. Did you know that prior to western invasion, all indigenous cultures had an extended family structure in place, where resources and home was shared within the community? Do you know that because western cultures desire a man and women to have their own home and plot of land--characteristic of nuclear family structure-- that more resources and space is required?
sombora 1 year ago
@sombora Yes, I do know those things. You're describing a difference between what Quinn calls "Takers"(our culture) and "Leavers"(tribal/indigenous peoples). These are very basic, introductory subjects in Quinn's books, so yes, I know a lot about this subject. It seems if you'd actually read Quinn's books, you'd agree with him a lot more than you think.
I won't argue about your comment about scientists, demographers, "experts" and mathematical means because you're clearly beyond reason.
shyshadeofwater 1 year ago
@shyshadeofwater I've actually read his book, and his theory of of population is legit. I just don't hold him up as the supreme demographic god as you do. I look at other things as well. And I've based my argument on capitalism, what do you have to base yours other than Quinn's.
sombora 1 year ago
Comment removed
rowboatjenkins 11 months ago
@valhala56 Haha yes, these human weeds must be whacked.... you first, buddy!
rowboatjenkins 11 months ago
@rowboatjenkins I'll get a raincheck on that one friend.
valhala56 11 months ago
@valhala56 It also doesn't help that society tries to keep everyone single person alive
MetalDylan2 9 months ago
@MetalDylan2 Yes, true, but on the otherhand, you can't not help them either
blondalicous 3 months ago
@blondalicous True we loose either way
MetalDylan2 3 months ago
As for the starvation problem, as a species we are severly over populated, far beyond our natural limit.
the starvation problem is something that cannot be dealt with so easily, unless our population decrease to natural size, there will always be starvation.
The cold war metaphore that Quinn used in this video, is basicly saying this: people are starving, lets grow more food, when they are not starving, they will populate, and again we will have starvation. a race against food.
tamuralm 2 years ago
But those tribal cultures, did reproduce and went through the evolutionary levels that we did since 10 thousand years ago, although they did not grow beyond their natural limit, and even decreased because of us, they are not less evolved in natural terms.
our culture is based on principles that people think are unbreakable, principle that are mistaken as our nature, and not the nature of our culture, Quinn simply suggests that there are other ways to exist, maybe even better, not just one.
tamuralm 2 years ago
Look at Africa compared to western states. Where would you rather live and which do you think will be around longer? End of story.
Alfrunk 1 year ago
@Alfrunk You are not thinking very critically. Why would it matter where you live? This is a global problem. And there is nothing wrong with storing food in any sense of the word. He is only talking about totalitarian agriculture, which is what our culture practices the world over. And it is a scary thing.
PercysPants 1 year ago
@Alfrunk the west will not be recognizable in much time, so what's your point?
minamur 1 year ago
Although I agree with your statements that every creatures mind is slowly going through a phase of evolution, it does not mean that totalitarian agriculture is a part of that phase, its just a concept which human being have based their culture upon, if it was indeed a part of the evolution, then why is there still (altough very few) tribal cultures? the reason they did not prosper as well as our culture is because we in fact wiped most of them out in order for our increasing culture to strive.
tamuralm 2 years ago
I agree with "piebob" even though his writting is unpolished, i still reconize his points and agree with them. Daniel Quinn dosent realize that totalitarian agriculture was simply a phase in the evolution of the mind, the next phase could be for the better like being able to look back on situations like hes doin now and deciding if its for the better or the worst. Ultimatley I think us humans point in life is to reach the full evalution of our mind like Socrates, Buddha and Jesus accomplished.
tennisguy502 2 years ago
His writting is unpolished eh?? Eeeh ha hee ha heee!
But I guess that's the best you can get from someone who believes in "the evolution of the mind" as some sort of fast process that didn't take millions of years.
Anyway, I'll be waiting for large roman numerals to fall from the sky to indicate that we're in the "next phase."
zoobiewa 2 years ago
It certainly is unpolished. There's really no debate about that. Plus, he is a hypocrite. Does he store food? Does he hunt new food each day? Hell no. That's for people other than him. Disgusting.
Alfrunk 1 year ago
i think you might be missing the point and may be jumping to conclusions, he never tells ppl to start living like that or to not grow food, he's making an observation, the same way you would approach anything else in the world that isn't working properly
krose12414 1 year ago
Although I respect Daniel Quinns point i dont exactly agree with him. while watching this video i got the impression that he tought of totalitarian agriculture as a negative ipact on human. In my opinion it was simply an evalutionary trick that allowed a certian few to thrive in there inviorment. This evolution of the mind is arguably negative yet arguable possitive towarads our species surviving but in my opinion evalution is keyto survival and surviving as a functional system,earth
piebob26 2 years ago
Comment removed
solpower34 2 years ago
The whole point in what Quinn is saying is that we are THRIVING at the EXPENSE of our environment. Totalitarian agriculture will arguably lead us to our very own extinction. How can that not be negative? Animal species don't eliminate the very environment they live in, or else they'll die.
solpower34 2 years ago
Quinn is not talking about basic agriculture. He is talking about the movement for monopolies on agriculture. In the US, corporations have been permitted to patten seeds and have thus been able to control who uses them, who makes money and who does not eat. The system is about money rather than food. Historically, that was not the case. Food was about food.
yes327 2 years ago
Pazomblez, how is encouraging growth of food we eat not agriculture??
If you really want to understand how food is conclusively linked to population, you should read The Story of B (by Daniel Quinn). Draw your own conclusions after reading his book.
It suffices to say: It is a law that a species grows with the abundance of food and declines in its absence. Sadly, with agriculture we got access to uncontrolled amount of food and amazing powers of denial to the consequence of runaway population.
Whatmethinks 2 years ago
Quinn seems to be just playing semantics here (at least in the first bit). What he refers to as agriculture (i.e. simply encouraging growth of foods we eat) is horticulture, not agriculture. At least if you take the typical texbook anthropological definitions as correct. Also, 'totalitarian agriculture' is agriculture.
pazomblez 2 years ago
It is to my understanding that horticulture is small scale agriculture that does not include live stock or the economic aspect of agriculture. Either way, agriculture and totalitarian agriculture are indeed similar yet very different. Totalitarian agriculturist practice the destruction of entire ecosystems to ensure their specific crop's wellfare. While agriculturalist cultivate food within the allocations provided by their ecosystem (I.E. no pesticides).
solpower34 2 years ago
It doesn't make sense historically. when a group has access to only a certain amount of food, they keep their population at a level that can be fed by that amount. Native American tribes did not have condoms and birthcontrol. The Inuit did not have birthcontrol. The Bushmen did not have birthcontrol. Any anthro teachers or students out there?
tinashriller 2 years ago
Small groups having acces to a certain amount of food, to keep theri lifestyle, DO have birth control.
Be it by abortion (not in a hospital really, but by a man pushing with his knees into a woman until her vagina bleeds, for example) infanticide, not taking care well of some of the new born on purpose, or by keeping lactation until the kid is like 3 or 4 years old, so they don't have kids that often.
Faanat 2 years ago
my understanding is that they used medicinal plants as contraceptives and abortifactants. and the decisions to do this were made by the women. they didn't need to use protection otherwise since STIs were pretty much non existent.
and yes as someone else said, infanticide is sometimes practiced.
pazomblez 2 years ago
why would the population of starving people increase according to this theory of food production. I mean, I know it's true that if you increase the carrying capacity of the land there is a direct increase in population, but why do starving people have so many children?
tinashriller 2 years ago
@tinashriller Because of the fact that most of the food being produced only goes to certain parts of the overall population, i.e. those with the means to buy, trade for or otherwise get the food. A result of the way things work is that more and more people end up lacking the means to get the food.
Ska871 2 years ago
As a reaction to starvation and severe poverty, people are, by instinct, driven to reproduce in order to secure their kinds survival. That is atleast a logical explanation.
Baltizori 2 years ago
logically, no person or any other animal for that matter, would reproduce something they cannot feed. they would just worry about feeding themselves.
tinashriller 2 years ago
they have many children because many of these starving people are poor and dont have access to condoms and other birth control "devices". So sex comes into play and babies come out
spadesTPC 2 years ago
actually the dawn of time is a completely human concept, so the agricultural revolution came, and then as humans developed ways to calculate time, that would have to be the dawn of time surely...
sixthirtymusic 2 years ago
As for the comment about the tinfoil hat...
If i am choosing between "freedom in the wilderness" full of predators and mosquitoes, or a "culture of control" that comes with good cuisine and a BMW: bring on Big Brother!
sthprk666 2 years ago
Wow. Someone peed in the gene pool...
Stange72 2 years ago
I think you were having a contest with yourself to see how many assumptions you could make about my beliefs.
I don't think anyone here is making the claim that the dawn of time and the agricultural revolution are synonymous? The claim I would like to make, however, is that starvation HAS been a problem. I imagine the underlying motivation behind controlling agriculture was that people were hungry--i.e. that starvation existed. Problem: I don't have enough food. Light bulb: I shall grow my food!
sthprk666 2 years ago
but if people were starving because there is so little food, how do you expect people grew something out of nothing? if the food disappeared, they couldn't possibly grow food in time out of a few seeds lying around... i think a more plausible claim is that starvation came out of totalitarian agriculture, where there was a large population built off of this extra food, and when a drought/famine hit, the food decreased alarmingly, and thus mass starving..
mtc5028 2 years ago
i would have to disagree with your last statment... im not sure what the motivation behind controlling agriculture was but i dont think it was because people were starving... if your starving you dont have time to wait for food to grow... you would be dead before you were able to eat it
dylennon120 2 years ago
Now that IS a good point. At the same time, however, I would think that any motivation for controlling agriculture would have to come from a desire to make more, or at least try and bring some stability to the supply of food (although farmers know that there is no such thing as a certainty for production levels). If we really had lived in the "Garden of Eden" (in all its plenty) then we wouldn't have been inclined towards the "forbidden fruit" of agriculture.
sthprk666 2 years ago
Even if agriculture was derived from a "want" and not a "need," it still suggests that our pre-agricultural state left something to be desired: food. Hence, man assumes the plow. I admit this is speculative--generally the opinions and theories we pass as truth can be boiled down to a few underlying assumptions. You dig?
sthprk666 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The comment about a Dicken's character was in response to Stange72's statement about starvation not being such a bad thing, because the population would go down.
By the way if you watched Disney's "A Christmas Carol" then you should recall the line by SCROOGE "If they are going to die then they better hurry up and do it, and decrease the surplus population." Lot of Scrooges around here ; )
sthprk666 2 years ago
Comment removed
sthprk666 2 years ago
the projected demographic problem of the next century in the western world (the "totalitarian agriculturalists) is population decline, not growth.
i agree with bsb on invested interest and enjoying plenty.
nature sucks,
destroy the rainforest before it destroys you!
sthprk666 2 years ago
The system is broken! Let's fix it! Speak out on 9-11-09! Google freedominfonet Rock the Planet!
deque001 2 years ago
Comment removed
deque001 2 years ago
Google video: Food Production and Population Growth
Great vid that explains a lot of the stuff Quinn touched on here, especially what people are getting touchy about.
withindarkness 2 years ago
Comment removed
010101puddle 2 years ago
A Lot of people making comments here are missing the obvious, There doesn't have to be mass die outs, and millions are already suffering. Starting to decrease food production on a global scale will have the only logical effect: it will slow down and eventually reverse population growth.
Aid doesn't fucing help. Nations have to build their own infrastructure not based on limitless expansion and irresponsible "use" of materials.
Read Quinn's books, for a start, see what he means by "food race"
Themhambone 2 years ago 11
We need to bring reproduction under the rule of law using a democratic process, but I fear humans would rather suffer a die off.
Sciuser10 2 years ago
kind of like an algae bloom. or yeast in a vat of wine.
we will die off. It's part of nature.
rvbarnesboy 2 years ago
(cont'd) people have been indoctrinated with since they were 2 or 3 years old---expect a tongue-lashing. People will bitch and moan about this global socio-economic system all day long, but when you tell them a TRUE SACRIFICE is required dismantle the human ego, then fear produces "scientific" rebuttals. The New York blackout of 2003 showed me the length of dependency we've all been subjected to. I'm not a saint, neither does Quinn claim to be. But he's saying are you REALLY willing??
2conscious 2 years ago
I totally agree with poster "HairSquared". I've been teaching for years (but, could clearly switch the focus to re-educating adults, should people close their legs and stop over-reproducing). When you go against the holy grail of this society----religion--agriculture--REPRODUCTION---expect people to spew venom. Daniel Quinn's detractors are EXACTLY the type of arrogant people he had pegged in his book "The Story of B". If you are not perpetuating the GREAT MYTHS (continued...)
2conscious 2 years ago
You MUST be willing to accept the notion that the chance of Mr. Quinn being onto something, has relatively the same chance as any other belief system. You cannot take "Ishmael" as THE word. It is merely a challenge to you to see the world around you through a different prism, and not through the collective conditioning, or egoic self.
Dabodizafa 3 years ago
Anyone fooled by this childish charlatan is a sad individual indeed. Some sheep said this nonsense was based on peer reviewed academic journals - huh? Ishmael didn't have any annotations.
Alfrunk 3 years ago
And what makes you have such an opinion?
BornCrying 3 years ago
I have that oinion because, again, "ISHMAEL" DID NOT HAVE ANY CITATIONS TO BACK UP ANY OF ITS POINTS. It's just "one man's opinion" - it's not based on any evidence. The population explosion argument went out the window years ago. None of what people predicted has come true. In the 70's they were saying we'd all be starving by the year 2000, iirc. Quinn must not believe his own philosophy, as I don't see him living in the forest with Bwana, hunting for food and rejecting modernity.
Alfrunk 3 years ago
good luck showing that evidence without citation is not evidence. i don't see any citations in your post! ;)
fourtyfrets 3 years ago
FYI - YouTube isn't a peer reviewed site - it's for entertainment. I guess you didn't understand that? Furthermore, I am not writing books telling people how to live and criticizing western civilization based on opinion presented as fact, as Quinn is. Glad I could clear that up for you. By the way, don't be afraid of those dusty old books- read one sometime!
Alfrunk 3 years ago 3
this is as much of a straw man response as you make out his points to be. why don't you cite for us the reasons your philosophy of academic understanding is valid? It is not an absolute value. it is academic conditioning which keeps you in line and unwilling to even ponder anything that does not fit within academic dogma.(you are running an imposed mental program). you are attemptiing to impose a cultural value, not a truth.
intuitivecat 3 years ago
Yeah you're right...what have academics, people in science, statistics, anthropology, sociology or biology ever gotten right? They're just a bunch of mind-numbed morons! Thank god daniel quinn and his ape have arrived to save us. I'm open minded - but quinn just doesn't sell me on his points. I'm willing to consider it further - but I just don't think I could completely embrace what he's claiming. ESPECIALLY since he doesn't practice what he preaches - that's the most telling thing to me.
Alfrunk 3 years ago 2
your words lead me to believe that you tare most likely not actually that familiar with his work and the ideas he actually puts forth if you do not believe he lives by them.
he categorically states in his work that the concept is not for everyone to live in teh way he puts forth, but that the rest of the society has no right to stop them from doing so.
His ideas are in line with evolutionary diversity and survival strategy for a species. we should not all live in the same emic reality.
intuitivecat 3 years ago
Exactly, it is not about what is right and what is wrong, but what is diverse and sustainable.
BornCrying 2 years ago
Instead of complaining on your views or
battering you for not agreeing with Mr
Quinn, I would like to (not insinuating that
you're "uninformed" or anything negative,
really) recommend the follow up book to
"Ishmael" called "My Ishmael".
I personally liked that one more than
"Ishmael".
5chr4pn3ll 2 years ago
That is prepostorus. Quinn is simply stating facts. It is true that every year there is more food produced and it is true that every year there are more people. However it is not true that quinns philosophy is about living in forests. You are making assumptions about that. I challenge you to find anything in his texts that says that.
jozevgates 2 years ago
Myth #9: Overpopulation causes war and revolution. The most war-torn continent on earth—Africa—is also one of the least densely populated.
allymetoo 3 years ago 3
Myth #8: Overpopulation is the chief cause of poverty. Problems are almost always due to bad economic policy. The Ethiopian famine, for instance, was caused by its government confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms.
allymetoo 3 years ago 3
Myth #7: Overpopulation is threatening the worlds food supply. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all areas.
allymetoo 3 years ago 2
Myth #6: Many plants and animals are disappearing because of the growth in human numbers. This claim has no scientific data whatsoever to support it. Actually, some species such as blue whales, spotted owls, and black footed ferrets have been found to be more numerous than was once thought.
allymetoo 3 years ago
Myth #5: Air pollution is the result of overpopulation, and acid rain, a byproduct of air pollution, is destroying lakes, rivers, and forests. Actually in the US, air pollution is declining significantly. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program recently reported no widespread forest or crop damage in the US related to acid rain.
allymetoo 3 years ago
Myth #4: The worlds forests are disappearing because of overpopulation. In fact, annual forest growth today is more than 3.5x what it was in 1920. Now, trees are growing 33% faster than they are being cut.
allymetoo 3 years ago 2
I am curious as to where this information comes from. Could you please give a citation as to where you got this data? I have had students say the same (oddly enough, their parents all worked together in a clear-cutting lumber business) statistics to me and nobody (child, parent or businessman) has ever been able to tell me where these numbers actually come from other than the Bush white house press department.
HairSquared72 3 years ago
Myth #3: Overpopulation causes ozone depletion. Actually theres enough information here for a whole column, but S. Fred Singer(atmospheric physicist) calls the ozone scare a misuse of science.
allymetoo 3 years ago
Myth #2: Overpopulation is Causing Global Warming. In fact, 79 scientists issued the Leipzig Declaration saying there does not exist today a general scientific consensus aboutgreenhouse warming. Its interesting that many respected climatologists vigorously dispute a global warming danger.
allymetoo 3 years ago
Myth #1: Population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet. In fact, even though we cluster together to exchange goods and services, humans occupy only 1-3% of the earths land surface. If you allotted 1250 ft2 to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. But forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992, the World Bank predicted 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the UN predicted 9 billion.
allymetoo 3 years ago
Ok, you need to check your math and your common sense. While you say that we only occupy 1-3% of the earth's land surface, what about the areas changed and fragmented due to agriculture, business, energy production, pollution, etc, etc, etc? Our footprint extends beyond where we live. If you grew up in areas destroyed by industry like I did, you might understand this. Also, the reason why our population is falling is mainly due to the effects of pollution on our reproductive systems.
HairSquared72 3 years ago
"Also, the reason why our population is falling is mainly due to the effects of pollution on our reproductive systems. "
It's because women are given birth control and the ability to refuse to be continually raped by their husbands. It's because people don't need children to toil as slaves on their farm anymore.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
show some respect for mr. quinn.
he is, whether you agree with his views or not, one of the most innovative thinkers of our time.
also, i don't even know what half of the comments here even mean. speak your thoughts clearly people and keep god out of it.
SatinCowboy 3 years ago
Why should I show respect for the corruption and hypocrisy this UN sponsored pseudo scientist is hiding is hiding behind.
He seems to consume more food, than he needs to.
Relocating him to Zimbabwe would be just fine for him.
The Millions of $ he got funded with could have been used to produce food and shelter for those who need it.
allymetoo 3 years ago
I have met many like you and you are the problem entirely. There is no such thing as "pseudoscience", there is science and there is everything else. What Mr. Quinn is speaking about falls under the category of information taken from peer-reviewed scientific-based research.
The entire problem is not that people are starving and should be fed, the problem is that we need less people. Actually try to think about the problem and become part of the solution and stop being part of the problem.
HairSquared72 3 years ago
I have done my research very well and can clearly reed between the lines of Mr Quinns Books. I know how it is financed and by whom and why.
The basic problem is not that we have no food. ( WE HAVE UNBELIEVABLE amount of Food stored but it doesn't get distributed where it is needed )
Population Growth is NOT caused by abundance of Food.
The participation of Mr Quinn in these fraudulent schemes is in fact Murder ( Intellectual Murder )
allymetoo 3 years ago
SO, where is it financed?. By whom? Why?
Population certainly doesn't increase without an increase in food supply.
Tabberwacky 3 years ago
(continued response to allymetoo)
You also have to remember that abortions and other forms of population control were stopped in most areas where starvation occurs due to the acts of "good christians" who had absolutely no sense as to why those things might be necessary. Also, I agree that we do have a gigantic surplus of food. This is why we still have too many families having too many despicable little monsters (sorry, I am a teacher) and too many farmers being paid NOT to grow food.
HairSquared72 3 years ago
Agreed, Landusage takeover schemes through Biodiesel Production will be one of the major causes of starvation in developed countries.
allymetoo 3 years ago
I don't see why mass starvation is a "bad thing". I mean, sure, it would suck for those people, but, if there are too many individuals in a population and insufficient resources to support that population, then animals (people) will starve and the population goes down. Problem solved.
Stange72 2 years ago
But the problem with that is people in starving countries have many children in hopes that one or two survive, therefore the population doesn't go down, instead it goes up. Not to mention that starvation has a problem since the dawn of time.
lillady44 2 years ago
Well, if they are deliberately, bringing children into poverty, and keep reproducing even after some of their children die, then they deserve all the suffering that comes their way.
Sciuser10 2 years ago
So the only people who deserve to reproduce are those fortunate enough to have been born in a western country? Or am I misunderstanding your logic? Lucky for you to be one of the lucky minority.
ButterySexBiscuit 2 years ago
I have news for you. I do not have any children, by choice. Furthermore, the global south is out reproducing the global north many times over. It's not a question of "deserving". They have already done it . What they deserve is the consequences of their actions. Plus, we don't have the resources to help them. We are broke. The earth's resources are nearly exhausted. When the world's leading scientists like David Pemintal said we were living unstainabley, what do you think they meant?
Sciuser10 2 years ago
The surpluses of food in the U.S fuel growth on "third world" coutries.
topoblue 2 years ago
Yes, I favor cutting off food aid, or at least, linking it to a low birth rate rquirement. If we don't do this soon, we are going to have hell on earth. I do not want to see a modern global die-off similar to the Easter Island die-off.
Sciuser10 2 years ago
What will be will be. Enjoy it while you got it. I have no vested interest in the future of this planet or our speices. The sum of my chemical composition will move on soon enough. Don't fret.
ButterySexBiscuit 2 years ago
Read Ishmael.
poolfiend 2 years ago
I read the second one. You all live in a fuckin fantasy world. We're not going back until we're forced back, at which point the resource base will be even more assfucked then it is now. Enjoy plenty while it's here. It's actually really nice. And besides, living in the woods would be fucking boring. We all clearly enjoy youtube after all.. haha
ButterySexBiscuit 2 years ago
First of all, starvation has not been a problem since the start of time. It has been a problem since the agricultural revolution. The dawn of time and the agricultural revolution are not synonymous, but are actually separated by billions of years. Starvation is a response to the decision to stop controlling the birthrate of a population, whether taken voluntarily or forced. This arose with the idea that "our way is the one right way," idea of farming grains which got us kicked out of eden.
Stange72 2 years ago
Agree. Everybody talking about 'psychosis' etc. is wrong. This is a natural process. We can still do something about it, but even if we don't, why judge humanity? This is all NATURAL.
Peak theorists often disagree with each other. I've never read 'Ishmael', only because I heard from someone that it extols the virtues of primitiveness over civilization, which is another example of this tendency to tell people what they want to hear. That someone was John Michael Greer BTW -- check him out.
fourplusseven 2 years ago
i recall a similar line from a certain dickens character:
sthprk666 2 years ago
Really? Which one? I am curious. I've watched Disney's a Christmas Carol with Scrooge MacDuck, but I never read any of his works in high school.
Stange72 2 years ago
Why is it "murder" to kill a person but not to kill another animal? Why are humans valued over other animals, since there is no difference between us?
Population growth is indeed caused by increased food supply. When poor countries run into famine due to overpopulation, they know that "good christians" (if there is such a thing) can't sit by and see pictures of starving children on the telly, so they know food is coming, so they don't stop having children. (cont'd below)
HairSquared72 3 years ago
"Why is it "murder" to kill a person but not to kill another animal?"
Because we are humans and our morals are aligned for survival and procreation of humans. Other animals are tasty food and get treated as such.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
And yet, we are tasty food to several species, most notably, the lion, the polar bear, the grizzly bear and others. We are animals too; we eat others and, in turn, get eaten by other animals. I, personally, have no problem with people getting eaten here and there. I think its kind of funny, like that idiot that tried to read bible verses to a pride of lions in a zoo. Yay, Darwin Awards!
Stange72 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why not stop feeding the filthy foundations that fund such wrong science and phony authors, and return the money to the treasury, where it belongs.
A 10% cut from the foundation money should be enough to launch an independent study to debunk the growing population myth. ( Which has actually started to decrease )
Once done with this, put Maurice Strong and the Rothshilds behind Bars ( where they belong )
allymetoo 3 years ago
Its only decreasing in parts of the 1st world. Global population is growing steadily.
I have seen no solid reason to doubt the typical numbers given for world population.
withindarkness 3 years ago
I have a serious reason to doubt official state controlled statistical Data.
As of today, there is no accurate means to produce the claimed statistical Data ,especially in third World Countries
What I know as of today, is that there is an acute Depopulation Agenda at work:
- Abortion Policies
- Man made Viruses
- Vaccinations ( lined with Death )
- Genocides
- Man made Diseases through modern Science
- Land Use conversion through Bio Fuel Production
- Food Control through Genetic Engineering
allymetoo 3 years ago
Wow, you need to check your tinfoil hat, it is slipping a little bit. I think the government is reading your mind.
Stange72 2 years ago
Sorry, but you wear your beliefs and ignorance like a badge & are proud of your stupidity. I have nothing to say to you since you have nothing intelligent to offer the conversation & you are obviously unwilling to listen to anything intelligent that doesn't fit your belief that the earth belongs to you and that you should be allowed to do whatever you wish. Keep acting like a spoiled 2-year-old who got spanked for burning ants with a magnifying glass & see how far your line of thinking takes us.
Stange72 2 years ago
to the moon ; )
sthprk666 2 years ago
And for the record, I have read Daniel Quinn, Derek Jensen, and other similar authors. For a year or so I actually DID believe in what they had to say (and, to some degree, still do). However, I choose to place my faith in human innovation to overcome the problems we produce. You call it "ignorance," I call it a decision. And yes, maybe I did arrive at it because I am too spoiled to take up the "leaver" lifestyle--like the other "2-year-olds" on Youtube not in the woods somewhere.
sthprk666 2 years ago
Your central conceit is betrayed by what you write. You wrote that, "For a year or so I actually DID believe.." The use of the verb "believe" is where I have problems. Beliefs are technically the opposite of rational thought. If you were to approach the problem rationally and without belief, then it makes a whole lot more sense. The moment you allow belief into the equation, rational thought goes out the window, just look at Sarah Palin or, worse yet, Ronald Reagan or George Bush (W or HW).
Stange72 2 years ago
We should stop feeding the hungry.
heyyouube11111 3 years ago
Svrew you fat boy get off the set, we dont own anything, animals have valubal lives too, all animals have there roll, we are all important nothing belongs to us, EVERYTHING belongs to God, screw you!
thecrossoflife 3 years ago
SCREW YOU FAT BOY!, get off the set, you dont know nothing, we dont onw anything animals have there play in life to, so screw you all animals are valubal you itit, nothing belongs to us it belongs to God,...
thecrossoflife 3 years ago
Im sure your god would be well pleased by the way his servant presents himself and his cause.
KIDiotequeA 3 years ago
hey he does kinda look like the antichrist doens't he?
zadig08 3 years ago
hey so ummmm.... how can one preach what he doesn't practice?
zadig08 3 years ago
Because no one else does.
Indelon 3 years ago
too bad i do bro
zadig08 3 years ago
I very much enjoyed reading Ishmael, and trying to grasp your vision through the eyes of Mother Culture is always something interesting to explore. However, if man is subject to the laws of nature like all other creatures, and history did not end with Man like it didn't end with Jellyfish, then there is no reason to stem our growth. We are simply another step in the chain of evolution, and it is our industry + agriculture that will evolve into the next important critter.
KforKufnaka 3 years ago
If you actually understood the mechanisms of how evolution works, then you would understand that your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Stange72 2 years ago
Quinn's books are awesome. I highly recommend them to all viewers. Start with "Ishmael" and then "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", "Beyond Civilization", "After Dachua", "Work, Work, Work", etc., etc.
They will change how you view our problems and the list of real solutions.
CougarsRock 3 years ago 2
i read ishma