Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

A slow, analog alternative to the internet

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SkaBassist
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:42 am UTC
Location: Texas (The ass end of America)
Contact:

Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby SkaBassist » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:07 am UTC

I'm on my fifth reading of this book. It is absolutely, hands down, my favorite book of all time.

Anyone else read/like/love it? Also, if any of you haven't read it, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

User avatar
bbctol
Super Deluxe Forum Title of DESTINYâ„¢
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby bbctol » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:05 pm UTC

One of the few books that tried to make a point which I enjoyed immensely, despite, in retrospect, realizing that I completely disagreed with the point it was trying to make. Still an excellent book, though, somehow.

lamito
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:41 am UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby lamito » Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:26 pm UTC

i had to read these books in english. i was amazed that they didn't suck. after reading the first one in grade 9 i was going to buy the second, then i found out we were reading in class in grade 10.
*thumbs up and grin creepy-like*
Spoiler:
you just wasted a few seconds of your life. congratulations

lucasp1989
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:47 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby lucasp1989 » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:54 pm UTC

Reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn had me thinking about life and our purpose as humans on Earth.

zaknefien
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:54 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby zaknefien » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:02 pm UTC

Reading ishmael was verry interesting. Ishmael definatly puts a whole new perspective on the world. Ishmael will definatly make you think about the world.

GoodRudeFun
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:42 am UTC
Location: The desert... is HELL
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby GoodRudeFun » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:09 am UTC

I loved Ishmael, though I've only read it once. I usually dislike reading a book more than once, but there are exceptions, like hitchhikers guide. This is definitely one of those exceptions.

One of the biggest reasons I loved it is that I've always felt that society (or the takers, if you will :wink: ) has always had some problems. This book made me think deeply about that, and flesh out my philosophy on the subject. In fact, I'm still thinking about, and its been over a year since I've read it.

Besides that, I loved the way it was set up and presented. Not many authors can make a book consisting almost entirely of a point to make and keep it as interesting or engaging as that.



(also, Ska and Ishmael all in one? I think I love you :P )
Oh. Well that's alright then.

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby vers » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:18 am UTC

I heard Ska and philosophy and came running!

I completely disagreed with the point (that is, if i got the point right) in Ishmael but entirely enjoyed reading it.

User avatar
6453893
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby 6453893 » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:18 pm UTC

GoodRudeFun wrote:One of the biggest reasons I loved it is that I've always felt that society (or the takers, if you will :wink: ) has always had some problems.


Really?

coney
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:37 am UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby coney » Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:34 am UTC

For all of you who disagreed with the point of the book, what did you think the point of the book was? It's been so long since I've read the book, I can't remember the exact details without getting them mixed up with other related authors.

I was required to read this book for my biology lab three years ago, and I've been hooked on Quinn ever since. Personally, out of all the anti-civilization authors out there, he's my favorite.

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby vers » Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:50 pm UTC

well, coney, you said it: he's anti-civilization.
I feel that the point of Ishmael, boiled down, was to argue that we have no right to treat the planet as ours to do with what we may. In arguing the point though, he seems to make the case that animals and traditional hunter-gatherer human cultures lived in harmony with the earth instead of using it to their own will.

I feel, though, that that is a false assumption. When life survives based primarily on natural selection, the result is that every creature takes however much they can get for themselves and their gene pool (family.) The fact that animals and h-g societies are in balance with the earth is that they are trapped by their ability to garner resources and thus do not grow too large; it is not some notion of harmony that we just forgot somewhere along the line.

Even our own societies (Quinn's "takers") are similarly trapped by our ability to garner resources. We are far less likely to kill the planet (short of nuclear holocaust) than we are likely to kill ourselves through over-consumption. At that point, many of us would die and the planet would continue operating. It's no different than some woodland creature becoming overpopulated and eating its own population into starvation. Then, afterward, the animal either goes extinct and another animal comes in to fill its niche, or it's sufficiently reduced in population. Either way, the environment continues operating.

Essentially what i'm saying is that we can't inherently over-extend the planet to the point where it becomes just a rock. We can only continue pushing the pendulum farther and farther until it eventually swings back the other way and we as a race give way. It seems much better to argue planet "harmony" as a means of continuing our own survival rather than the planet's survival. The planet is going to survive. We probably won't.

I mean, hey, even if we wreak havoc on the environment until all forms of life are completely extinct...Mars has no life, and it gets along just fine without it. Thats all I'm saying.

coney
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:37 am UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby coney » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:06 am UTC

Hi vers, thanks for the response.

vers wrote:I feel that the point of Ishmael, boiled down, was to argue that we have no right to treat the planet as ours to do with what we may.


Let me change your perceived point of the book: "We have no right to treat the planet as ours to do with what we may, specifically, by breaking the Law of Limited Competition." The Law of Limited Competition states, if you remember: "You may take what you need, but you may not prevent others from taking what they need."

In arguing the point though, he seems to make the case that animals and traditional hunter-gatherer human cultures lived in harmony with the earth instead of using it to their own will.

I feel, though, that that is a false assumption. When life survives based primarily on natural selection, the result is that every creature takes however much they can get for themselves and their gene pool (family.) The fact that animals and h-g societies are in balance with the earth is that they are trapped by their ability to garner resources and thus do not grow too large; it is not some notion of harmony that we just forgot somewhere along the line.


You are using a reductionist viewpoint to argue for what we should do here. It doesn't matter whether ecosystems work by a natural cap on resource acquisition or whether or not we consciously perceive the "harmony" of all things. The end result is that we (all living things) once lived in a dynamic equilibrium that did not threaten the stability of our ecosystems. It's irrelevant how we got there.

...but:

Even our own societies (Quinn's "takers") are similarly trapped by our ability to garner resources. We are far less likely to kill the planet (short of nuclear holocaust) than we are likely to kill ourselves through over-consumption. At that point, many of us would die and the planet would continue operating. It's no different than some woodland creature becoming overpopulated and eating its own population into starvation.


Actually, it is different. You'd be hard-pressed to find any other species that breaks the Law of Limited Competition other than civilization. If following that law is the defining factor in the stability of an ecosystem (and by all ecological accounts, it is), and if you care about your own habitat, then breaking this law is the most destructive thing you can do to yourselves and others.

Notice also that there is a huge difference between a population outstripping its resources, multiplying, and crashing (which is not totally unheard of in the biological community); and a population controlling competition for resources, outstripping them, multiplying, and crashing (which is definitely unheard of in the biological community.) The former case is usually found among opportunist species who are displaced from their native habitats. They discover an abundance of food, whether by it naturally being there or by an unfair predatory advantage over prey, and increase in numbers to match the amount of food. This increase may be harmless, but you can see that in the case of an over-advantaged predator, its prey will always be easy to catch and therefore easily exhaustible. The species then outstrips its food supply and subsequently crashes in population (although I think it is rare for it to go completely extinct because of this.) The species destroys itself, its food supply, and possibly other species which also depended on that food supply, but ultimately the damage is hardly perceptible in the ecosystem as a whole.

The latter case is found in our own civilization. In this case, an overabundance of food does not come from it naturally being there or by us having an unfair advantage in getting it. It comes from us directly creating it, by both working harder and by denying others any competition in procuring our resources. Both actions initially produce a rift in our own species: we know that one law of nature states that it tends toward reduced effort (nothing works harder than it absolutely has to), therefore "working harder" is not something that a species will keep up for very long. There has to be some other factor involved that will keep a population working more than it should. Quinn hypothesizes that created food was kept under lock and key, thereby requiring a class of people who can guard it, and thereby extending the denial of competition to within our own species. I would add to this that to sustain this situation, our species would have to make our created food the only possible food source, to force people from abandoning creating food, lest they starve. Also, enforcing the denial of competition for our resources from other species requires increased work in itself and new methods of doing so. All this produces a rift in our own society, splitting us into those who have, i.e. those who hold the lock and key and necessarily abuse their power, and those who have not, i.e. those creating the food itself but being not able to utilize it for themselves.

The ability to create our own food is a very powerful thing. It's common knowledge what happens after this. We multiply and expand our territory, being able to with our ability to create food wherever we go, something a general opportunist species is not able to do. Different environments, denying competition to others and ourselves, and increased work all require procuring an ever-expanding set of resources, which necessarily require more resources to give us that ability, and so on in a positive feedback cycle. What this necessarily means is that we are not just outstripping our food supply but the food supplies of other species, resources, and the very ability of our ecosystems to support us. It comes down to the fact that we are taking infinitely more than any other species has in the past, and our crash will be infinitely more horrible than any of those in the past. And our crash does not just involve us and a few other species, but every living thing on the planet, much of which we've already destroyed.

Essentially what i'm saying is that we can't inherently over-extend the planet to the point where it becomes just a rock. We can only continue pushing the pendulum farther and farther until it eventually swings back the other way and we as a race give way. It seems much better to argue planet "harmony" as a means of continuing our own survival rather than the planet's survival. The planet is going to survive. We probably won't.


Well I agree with you here to a point. The "planet" will always be here, but at the rate of extinction of 200 species a day by human hands, much of what was here is already gone. We're not talking about the Earth as a floating rock in space, but as an ecosystem.

However, I really hope you're right and we don't have the ability to turn the planet into a lifeless rock. God I hope we don't.

I mean, hey, even if we wreak havoc on the environment until all forms of life are completely extinct...Mars has no life, and it gets along just fine without it. Thats all I'm saying.


Another reductionist viewpoint arguing for what we should do as a whole, huh? :D

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby vers » Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:06 am UTC

vers wrote:I feel that the point of Ishmael, boiled down, was to argue that we have no right to treat the planet as ours to do with what we may.

coney wrote:Let me change your perceived point of the book: "We have no right to treat the planet as ours to do with what we may, specifically, by breaking the Law of Limited Competition." The Law of Limited Competition states, if you remember: "You may take what you need, but you may not prevent others from taking what they need."


Well of course this is different depending on what you define as "Need." I'm no biology expert...obviously...however, i would argue that other creatures don't break this law simply because they are unable to. Hypothetically, if deer were able to control competition over tasty woodland nibblets, i'm sure they would. I say this because i'm defining 'need' less as the bare minimum and more as the desire to consume all resources which provide an advantage for yourself and your descendents. And when you consider that almost any resource will give you some advantage, 'need' and 'limitless want' are essentially the same.

When i am thinking of it this way (which is always) breaking the law of limited competition is simply a more complicated way of gathering resources, or advantages. Any animal does the same thing simply by eating. If one cute deer and another cute deer are reduced to competing over one remaining nibblet, one will be taking what they need, and the other will be prevented from taking what they need. Of course the deer are unaware of their dire situation soooo the same situation would play out regardless of food requirement (except the other deer would be able to find another nibblet upon which they could nibble. yaaay). Faced with their own possible consumption of a resourse versus that of a completely unrelated rival, any animal would choose themselves every time, as many times as they possibly could.

But that is neither here nor there.

coney wrote:You are using a reductionist viewpoint to argue for what we should do here. It doesn't matter whether ecosystems work by a natural cap on resource acquisition or whether or not we consciously perceive the "harmony" of all things. The end result is that we (all living things) once lived in a dynamic equilibrium that did not threaten the stability of our ecosystems. It's irrelevant how we got there.


In a way, i agree with you entirely. While i disagree that we are living outside a dynamic equilibrium, i certainly believe our ecosystems as we know them are in dire straits. But my next point, you alluded to yourself:

coney wrote:You'd be hard-pressed to find any other species that breaks the Law of Limited Competition other than civilization. If following that law is the defining factor in the stability of an ecosystem (and by all ecological accounts, it is), and if you care about your own habitat, then breaking this law is the most destructive thing you can do to yourselves and others.


This was my point originally. If WE want to survive, we need to preserve our "own habitat" because if we dont it "is the most destructive thing you can do to yourselves and others." Absolutely! I do not want to die! I entirely believe in the ends of Ishmael, in that we absolutely must change our habits (somehow, at least. Power, as you stated, is abusive) if we want our species to continue sustainably.

coney wrote:It comes down to the fact that we are taking infinitely more than any other species has in the past, and our crash will be infinitely more horrible than any of those in the past. And our crash does not just involve us and a few other species, but every living thing on the planet, much of which we've already destroyed.


While not every living thing could possibly be affected (i'm including those bacteria that can practically survive anywhere, anywhen, anyhow), the collapse would certainly be catastrophic. The earth might possibly be unrecognizable if we continue on our path. Here, i think, we agree, you and i. But i think you would acknowledge: eventually, new life would evolve. The earth would come to balance again in a few hundred million years, no matter what pressure we put on it in our fleeting existence and no matter how catastrophic our impact (short of blowin the place the smithereeeens).

What i'm saying, then, is that our interest is in preserving our own ecosystem in a manner in which it remains recognizable. Our interest isn't really in preserving "the ecosystem of the planet," since it will come to balance again once were gone, if we go. Our interest is in preserving ourselves. And the only way to do that is to modify or abolish the power structure that i believe Quinn correctly identified (not because it breaks an environmental law, but because the way in which we are gathering resources will eventually kill us.)

And because i like to boil things down until they're ridiculously, almost stupidly simple (as youve seen):
to me, wrong is saying we should stop pushing the earth because we'll push it too far and leave it useless.
Right is saying we should stop pushing the earth so hard because it will push back, and we will die, because it will maintain balance. For that it the way of the universe (amen).

vers wrote:I mean, hey, even if we wreak havoc on the environment until all forms of life are completely extinct...Mars has no life, and it gets along just fine without it. Thats all I'm saying.

coney wrote:Another reductionist viewpoint arguing for what we should do as a whole, huh? :D


Depends entiiiirely on your priorities. Or rather, the universe's priorities. ( :twisted: <-the universe)

GoodRudeFun
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:42 am UTC
Location: The desert... is HELL
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby GoodRudeFun » Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Vers is right. Its simply an impossibility for civilization alone to destroy ALL life on earth. Nothing short of the complete destruction of the entire surface could accomplish that (even then, I recall and experiment where it was found that bacteria can live dormant locked inside salt crystals, which would basically mean you'd have to really fuck things up to get rid of life).

The problem is that it wont remain viable for us... but you've already covered that.

Here's where I wish to clarify though: Quinn wasn't arguing that we were breaking any laws (at least, from what I understood), he was arguing that civilization assumes the laws do not apply when they do and always will until we can -completely- cut ourselves off from those systems and still live as takers do.

Whats more, another facet of his argument seems to be ignored: doomed or not civilization is just not working for us. It's making life miserable for a vast majority of humanity, where the leaver's system did not. This deals with the aforementioned laws, but it also deals with who we are as humans. This life doesn't work for us because it doesn't satisfy our basic social needs the way the lives of the leavers did. We could continue on indefinitely as we are (however this is not likely), but it would still be a problem, because few are happy. This is arguably a lesser point, but still rather valid.
Oh. Well that's alright then.

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby vers » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:22 am UTC

GoodRudeFun wrote: Whats more, another facet of his argument seems to be ignored: doomed or not civilization is just not working for us. It's making life miserable for a vast majority of humanity, where the leaver's system did not.


My beefs with Ishmael aside, this point is entirely valid and would be worthy of a thread all its own, completely seperate from Ishmael. I wouldn't know as to how happy people were before agriculture, but i can personally attest to societies present woes. It blends nicely with my point of saving the environment for our own sake, as well.

GoodRudeFun
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:42 am UTC
Location: The desert... is HELL
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby GoodRudeFun » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:20 am UTC

vers wrote:
GoodRudeFun wrote: Whats more, another facet of his argument seems to be ignored: doomed or not civilization is just not working for us. It's making life miserable for a vast majority of humanity, where the leaver's system did not.


My beefs with Ishmael aside, this point is entirely valid and would be worthy of a thread all its own, completely seperate from Ishmael. I wouldn't know as to how happy people were before agriculture, but i can personally attest to societies present woes. It blends nicely with my point of saving the environment for our own sake, as well.


<.<
>.>
I might have made that thread in SB, titled "civilization, its definition...", you can't miss it. /shameless plug

This is a topic on which I've been thinking heavily on for a while.... and one that for some reason isn't always gotten from Ishmael. If I recall correctly he makes the point several times. At one point saying that tribal societies have lower rates of mental illnesses like depression than our own civilization.

Also, I'm not sure what exactly your beef is. It seemed to me that you felt he was saying "we'll wipe all life out because we broke the law", but from what I got he was saying "we'll wipe ourselves out because we thought we were immune and we aren't."

At any rate, still a fantastic book. I still seriously need to get me another copy. They're really hard to find though.
Oh. Well that's alright then.

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby vers » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 pm UTC

Well, i'll go over asap!
Of course if i were really to get into it, i'd be arguing the uselessness of labels like 'depression' and 'mental illness' as social constructs meant to normalize us into a collective static identity, and that that is one of the reasons we find our position unsatisfactory in the first place....but i won't get into it.

not here, at least. :wink:

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:47 pm UTC

I couldn't stand his shamelessly pretentious attitude, and I don't entirely disagree with the message. Quinn creates a narrator that is immune to our inherent biases, a complete outsider to our society, in order to give his instruction an enlightened, almost divine, certainly post-human level of authority. He then proceeds to channel his inherently biased, necessarily socially-infected thoughts through it. He gives himself an authority that he cannot live up to, and expects us to accept it because his fictional mouthpiece can. When an author effectively says "listen to me, I'm the single most enlightened person on the planet" I tend to tune out.

GoodRudeFun
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:42 am UTC
Location: The desert... is HELL
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby GoodRudeFun » Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:34 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:I couldn't stand his shamelessly pretentious attitude, and I don't entirely disagree with the message. Quinn creates a narrator that is immune to our inherent biases, a complete outsider to our society, in order to give his instruction an enlightened, almost divine, certainly post-human level of authority. He then proceeds to channel his inherently biased, necessarily socially-infected thoughts through it. He gives himself an authority that he cannot live up to, and expects us to accept it because his fictional mouthpiece can. When an author effectively says "listen to me, I'm the single most enlightened person on the planet" I tend to tune out.
To be fair, he did bring up some points not often considered by the average person. Many have called Ishmael revolutionary as well.

The gorilla was a method of bring a point across. It was rather effective, as was the set up. It may have been pretentious, but with ideas like that there really isn't much of a way not to come off as pretentious.

That said, I don't disagree with you. I just think it was a good book, and brought up decent points.
Oh. Well that's alright then.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby TheAmazingRando » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

I agree with a lot of the points themselves. If he wrote it as a straightforward essay, I probably would have enjoyed and recommended it. I just felt like his method worked heavily against what he was trying to say.

Quenouille
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:34 am UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby Quenouille » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:36 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:I agree with a lot of the points themselves. If he wrote it as a straightforward essay, I probably would have enjoyed and recommended it. I just felt like his method worked heavily against what he was trying to say.


I must say Ishmael had much more visibility as a book than it would've had as an essay.

coney
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:37 am UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby coney » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:15 am UTC

vers and GoodRudeFun:

I agree with everything you say. No arguments here.

coney

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby vers » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:15 pm UTC

coney wrote:I agree with everything you say. No arguments here.

haha coney i can't tell if thats sarcastic or not >.>
if its not, its an honor to have someone who really knows their stuff to argue with and come to a few agreements (your posts on GoodRudeFun's SB thread are pretty incredible. thats a great topic to read, i advise everyone to check it out.)

TheAmazingRando wrote:I agree with a lot of the points themselves. If he wrote it as a straightforward essay, I probably would have enjoyed and recommended it. I just felt like his method worked heavily against what he was trying to say.
There is something to be said for the inherent beauty of a piece of art over a simple essay, though. Quinn's presentation was polarizing even among those who agree with him (obviously), but perhaps he intended to be critical in the way he was in order to provoke some deep reflection.

Although i do agree that it can get pretty pretentious. The book reads less like a mutual discovery and more like a particularly unpopular university professor's lecture. I appreciate that Quinn handled his work as a piece of informative art, but it could have been handled better philosophically (as ive said) and artistically, especially if he intended to gain recruits to his cause.

coney
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:37 am UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby coney » Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:28 am UTC

vers wrote:
coney wrote:I agree with everything you say. No arguments here.

haha coney i can't tell if thats sarcastic or not >.>
if its not, its an honor to have someone who really knows their stuff to argue with and come to a few agreements (your posts on GoodRudeFun's SB thread are pretty incredible. thats a great topic to read, i advise everyone to check it out.)


Don't worry, vers, I'm being honest. :D I just didn't want to go into depth about why I agreed with you guys. Too busy responding to that other thread.

And thank you very much for the kind words! That really made me feel good. It's pretty awesome to me too to have some people who are on my side here (being in my position about civilization, I'm not too welcome in other places outside anti-civ circles...) I think I'm going to stay away from the SB thread from now on though. Moderator intervention shows that it's going downhill quickly. But if you want to talk some more about this stuff, vers, I'd be happy to do it in a PM or something.

coney

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby Jahoclave » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:02 am UTC

bbctol wrote:One of the few books that tried to make a point which I enjoyed immensely, despite, in retrospect, realizing that I completely disagreed with the point it was trying to make. Still an excellent book, though, somehow.

That's why I refuse to reread it. My views have shifted quite a lot from when I was in middle school to having realized that Rush Limbaugh is an absolute fucktard. I don't want to discover that I think the point is it trying to make is horseshit and have to hate the book on principle.

GoodRudeFun
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:42 am UTC
Location: The desert... is HELL
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby GoodRudeFun » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:58 am UTC

Thanks Coney :D

The SB thread I made is going a bit downhill I guess. To be honest I kinda thought It'd die before now.

Anyways, I've heard lots of suggestions for other anti-civ material, but I'm kinda short on money and a bit far from a library for now, so does anyone have suggestions on online material (that is legal, I don't want to go around stealing now)? I'd like to learn more about this, but material is hard to come by for some reason. Ishmael alone is almost impossible to find, so I don't expect to find much else either.
Oh. Well that's alright then.

coney
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:37 am UTC

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby coney » Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:58 pm UTC

Dear GoodRudeFun,

Here's as much online anti-civ literature as I could muster:

The Derrick Jensen website

The Derrick Jensen forum - This is probably the most active anti-civ forum out there, but you have to have read at least one of his books to join. I'm known as 'kabure' on there, if you ever get around to joining.

Two videos of Derrick Jensen rehashing his book 'Endgame':

Endgame, part 1

Endgame, part 2

The Daniel Quinn website

The IshThink forum - hardly active at all, but really the only available Ishmael forum today

The IshCon forum - now defunct, but you can still peruse the forum archives

Video reading of Ishmael - Ishmael read front to back by some of the IshThink forum members

The John Zerzan website - though I haven't read anything by him yet, he's one of the main guys who embodies the term 'anti-civ'.

The Ascent of Humanity by Charles Eisenstein - 600+ page book on civilization past, present, and future for free online

Green Anarchy magazine - the 'anti-civ magazine'; all their materials are free online, I think

The 'Back to Basics' primer - zip file of Green Anarchy's Back to Basics series, which pretty much defines the anti-civ movement

Anti-Civ.net - news site for anti-civ stuff (communiques and general news)

Some of the Derrick Jensen forum members have websites and blogs which are very informative (all the names here are their Derrick Jensen forum names):

GreenRevolutionary's site

My website - ok, so there's nothing on there yet, but I do have intentions to set up a home-grown essay project, a journal, and eventually an anti-civ-related comic strip

Zack's website

Pigeon's website

Dog Soldier's website

ZoeBlunt has a few websites they contribute to:

ZoeBlunt's website

Forest Action Network

Bear Mountain Tree Sit

---

Misko's website

Ok, so there's what I could come up with on one pass. There's more out there, I know, and when I come across it I'll post it here. Anyway, enjoy!

coney

GoodRudeFun
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:42 am UTC
Location: The desert... is HELL
Contact:

Re: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

Postby GoodRudeFun » Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:04 pm UTC

Thanks Coney. I'll be sure to check those out. Right now I'm a bit tired and need to sleep, but I'm on a break right now so I'll have plenty of time to read those, and little to get in the way :D
Oh. Well that's alright then.


Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests