I really need some Help, pleeeease!!!!

[Chu-Chu]

Okay, I'm being forced to read this anti-religion book for school called "Isahmael". I don't know if anyone here has ever read it....but it is extremely crazy and I have a lot of quetions about it. I was talking to my parents about it because they gave great advice, but now they are getting annoyed. So I'm coming to all of you. I am being forced to read this nonsense, so naturally, I'm trying to find a way to fight back in any way I can. But in order to do that, I really need some help. A few sections in this book confuse me....

The character Ishmael, in the book, is trying to prove that society today is "enacting a story" that is slowly destroying humanity and the world. He is saying that because man believes that God has created the earth for man, man is doing whatever he pleases with the earth, destroying it in the process. He also says that man's purpose today is to conquer things. (space, sky, oceans, etc.) But now he is randomly blaming agriculture for being the main problem. Ever since man stopped hunting and gathering food and settled down and grew their own food, they have been dstroying the earth. It says man is different from animals because:
"they exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild"
"they systematically destroy their competitors food to make room for their own"
"They deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you are eating but you may not deny them access to food in general."
By growing our own food we are denying food to other animals.
Then it says that growing food and producing more food causes an increase in population. Because of this the world is overpopulated, one of the biggest problems is destroying the world.
"At present there are five and a half billion of you here. Though millions of you are starving you are producing enough food for six billion. And because you are producing enough food for six billion, it is a biological certainty that in three or four years there will be six billion of you. But by that time though millions are still starving, you will be producing enough food for six and a half billion. In threee or four years there will then be six and a half billion of you."
Then it is saying that by feeding starving people we are just increasing the population, Here another character says,
"True. But it is hard to just sit by and let them starve."
He replies with, " This is precisely how someone speaks who imagines that he is the world's divinely appointed ruler. 'I will not let them starve. I will not let the drought come. I will not let the river flood.' It is the gods that let these things, not you."
Ishmael also says that it is silly to listen to prophets like Moses and Jesus and Buddha tell us how to live our lives. We should be able to learn how to live our lives by ourselves.
This book just gets weirder and weirder and though a small amount of it may be true, some thingsa are just ridiculous. But I would love to hear your thoughts on these things, how it ties into the bible, and things I can say to prove some of it wrong.
I don't think anyone will want to read it, but in case you do, Ishmael is by Daniel Quinn
Thank you

[Technomancer]

So I'm coming to all of you. I am being forced to read this nonsense, so naturally, I'm trying to find a way to fight back in any way I can.
But in order to do that, I really need some help. A few sections in this book confuse me....

OK.

The character Ishmael, in the book, is trying to prove that society today is "enacting a story" that is slowly destroying humanity and the world. He is saying that because man believes that God has created the earth for man, man is doing whatever he pleases with the earth, destroying it in the process.

This is a fairly well known criticism, and one that is at least partially right. Following Genesis, we understand ourselves to be the masters and stewards of the earth. Unfortunately, the emphasis on the former has often been at the cost of the latter. This isn't too surprsing though given the conditions in which humans until quite recently have had to live. The ever present threat of starvation has tended to push more abstract considerations aside. In any event, it can hardly be said that we had full knowledge of the environmental consequences of our actions. We are, however called to be stewards, and this means safeguarding the world we have been gifted with.

It is also worth pointing out that non-Christian civilizations have also had the same impacts that we have had. The fact that we industrialized first is as much an accident of history as anything else.

But now he is randomly blaming agriculture for being the main problem. Ever since man stopped hunting and gathering food and settled down and grew their own food, they have been dstroying the earth.

The spread of agriculture and mass civilization has had a significant impact on the Earth. However, the alternative, living like hunter-gatherers, is a good deal worse. One can only imagine the waste of human life and potential in seeing the majority of children die young, or our vast talents used for nothing more than digging up tubers. Ultimately, we have to decide what human life is for. Is it merely to fill some ecological niche? Or is it destined for something greater? That something greater by the way, can never happen in the absence of civlization.

It says man is different from animals because:
"they exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild"
"they systematically destroy their competitors food to make room for their own"
"They deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you are eating but you may not deny them access to food in general."

All this says is that humans are capable of forethought and planning. Animals compete with each other for resources. If a species is unable to compete, it will go extinct.

By growing our own food we are denying food to other animals.

In as much as we alter the local environment, this is true. One has to make a value judgement on the importance of human life versus animal life.

Then it says that growing food and producing more food causes an increase in population. Because of this the world is overpopulated, one of the biggest problems is destroying the world.

Both statements are true to a point. Being able to grow food allows us to have a surplus of resources. This makes civilization possible, and it also allows for population growth. However, global populations were largely steady prior to the industrial revolution, and the accompanying advances in health and sanitation.

"At present there are five and a half billion of you here. Though millions of you are starving you are producing enough food for six billion. And because you are producing enough food for six billion, it is a biological certainty that in three or four years there will be six billion of you. But by that time though millions are still starving, you will be producing enough food for six and a half billion. In threee or four years there will then be six and a half billion of you."

This a problem related to the equitable distribution of food, cultural attitudes towards large families, and so forth. It is hardly as simple as the author makes it out to be. Note for example, that western populations are largely steady.

He replies with, " This is precisely how someone speaks who imagines that he is the world's divinely appointed ruler. 'I will not let them starve. I will not let the drought come. I will not let the river flood.' It is the gods that let these things, not you."

If we have it within our power to do the things of gods, then the gorilla worships some very weak gods. How is it his role to declare what humans can and can't do?

[Angel37]

Like I said Chu, the gorilla fails to acknowledge that human weakness, not religion, creates most of today's problems. Like I told you, if EVERYONE followed what the Bible said to a 't' then the world would be in perfect harmony. It's sin that causes people to become greedy and destroy, though some destruction is necessary.

[Syreth]

Technomancer has some very good points. It seems that his premise for the way humans view their responsibility to care for the earth is pretty misguided. Humans, being naturally competative, do not depend on the commission from God for their drive to take charge of the earth. The only religion that he mentioned that has the responsibility of caring for the earth is Christianity (as far as I know). However, this assumes that everyone with a competative drive holds to a religion. Since you don't need religion to have such a competative drive or a need to care for people, you can assume that a sense of responsibility as well as a drive to conquer is just part of the human nature, without religion being to blame. Also, I think he misinterprets the call of God in Genesis. Man is told to subdue the earth, but not for abusive purposes (although unfortunately this is often the case). The miscare for the environment can be blamed on negligence and apathy rather than this call of God (or God Himself).

Also, it seems like the book is saying that we are no different than animals. Not only do we have the insight to see that we are different, but there are a multitude of other things (apart from being spiritual beings, capable of having a relationship with God) that set us apart as well.

Hmm... man hunting means that they are depriving an animal of the right to live. Man gathering means that they are consuming food that an animal could have eaten. Sounds like a lose-lose situation that doesn't depend at all on mass-producing food for our needs. Plus, we're producing some food for animals too, along with our own. Doesn't seem to be a very valid point to me.

[Kaligraphic]

That sounds like a very silly book.

[TurkishMonky]

"At present there are five and a half billion of you here. Though millions of you are starving you are producing enough food for six billion. And because you are producing enough food for six billion, it is a biological certainty that in three or four years there will be six billion of you. But by that time though millions are still starving, you will be producing enough food for six and a half billion. In threee or four years there will then be six and a half billion of you."

actually, i think the prediction is that population wil peak in less then a decade due to smaller family sizes...

[Angel37]

actually, i think the prediction is that population wil peak in less then a decade due to smaller family sizes...

I agree. Like I told you last night Chu, population rises and falls with disease, natural disasters, war, and simply birth ratios. Families are getting smaller, I mean look at mom. she was raised in a 5 children home, but she had 3 kids, and most ppl my age don't want any kids or just want one or two.

[SP1]

The author has a very idealistic view of "nature" and animals specifically. Animals cooperate and don't interfere with the food source, only what they are eating? False I say. African elephants like to wallow in the old water hole. However, in doing so they disturb the fragile pond bottom and the water drains away. So, large numbers of other animals die of thirst because the elephants wanted to cool off, not just drink (which they could easily do from the side of the pond). Some animals kill for sport. Don't believe me? Just give your pet cat a mouse. Unless it's really hungry it won't eat it; but it will shred it in a playfully sadistic way.

Then there's locusts...

I once saw a special about some monkeys on TV. These happened to live in trees. A monkey from a competing group wandered into this group's tree. Big mistake. Did they run it off like nice monkeys? Nope, the group systematically herded the trespasser until several caught ahold of it. While it was held down, another monkey came over and disemboweled it. Pretty strong I know, but important to remember when authors start to paint Earth as this perfect place that only man disrupts.

This book doesn't seem so much anti-religion, but anti-human. An interesting philosophical position to take for a human. If you could call this philosophical...sounds more like a rant.

[Seppuku]

this reminds me of a time a friend was claiming religion cuases wars. which of course is not true, people cuase wars. sometimes they may use religion as a excuse but theres always other motives. its kinda like the guns dont kill people, people kill people thing.

point is religion is a good thing but people are evil at times.

[Technomancer]

Families are getting smaller, I mean look at mom. she was raised in a 5 children home, but she had 3 kids, and most ppl my age don't want any kids or just want one or two.

That's really a recent phenomena that stems from our current living conditions. If you live in an agrarian society it makes sense to have lots of children in order to the physical labour needed on the farm. Similarily, if you live in a society with little access to modern medicien, it also makes sense to have many children, since so many of them will die in infancy. The problem is that some countries are in a period of transition; child mortality is much lower, and urbanization has increased, but the cultural biases towards large families have not changed. Europe and North America underwent similar transformations, but there were large frontiers for them to expand into. This is not generally true of other countries.

[Heart of Sword]

You don't have to read it, you know. Talk to the principal and tell him it goes against your religion.

[Chu-Chu]

Technomancer]OK.



Thank you very very much, that helps a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thank you thank you thank you!!!!!


Originally posted by Heart of Sword:
You don't have to read it, you know. Talk to the principal and tell him it goes against your religion.





I could do that, and my parents were actually considering that. But they talked it over with my pastor and agreed that I should read it becauase I'm learning from it and questioning it. But I think I will have them call anyway because of the other kids that have to read this. They may not have parents or a pastor or a bible, and without those, this book could be totally
believable.


Syreth, you had some pretty good points, This is really helping. Thank you!

That sounds like a very silly book.

You have no idea......

[Chu-Chu]

[Heart of Sword]

Yeah, but I doubt they'll care if kids are having problems with it.

[Chu-Chu]

[quote="SP1"]The author has a very idealistic view of "nature" and animals specifically. Animals cooperate and don't interfere with the food source, only what they are eating? False I say. African elephants like to wallow in the old water hole. However, in doing so they disturb the fragile pond bottom and the water drains away. So, large numbers of other animals die of thirst because the elephants wanted to cool off, not just drink (which they could easily do from the side of the pond). Some animals kill for sport. Don't believe me? Just give your pet cat a mouse. Unless it's really hungry it won't eat it]


AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Yeah, good point!!!! Wow, that really made me laugh....you are totally right, the guy is ranting. Heehee.....

[Kaligraphic]

Well, Camus did hold that the only real philosophical question was whether to commit suicide.

[termyt]

Elephants are actually an ecological nightmare. They alone, without the help of humans, are responsible for defoliating large amounts of the savanna. They like to knock over trees for some reason and do so with alarming frequency. Do they ponder the effects of their behavior on their environment? Since their behavior does not change, we can assume they do not.

Many animals are territorial and will drive competitors from the areas they inhabit, limiting their access to food and often potential mates. Bears, moose, sea lions, hippos, lions, some monkeys and a host of smaller animals engage in this activity of systematically denying resources to competitors. Ishmael has apparently gotten his facts about the animal kingdom from Walt Disney instead of Animal Planet. Humans are the most advanced form of life on this planet. It stands to reason that we’d be the best at denying competitors opportunity.

The fact of the matter is, these arguments do not stand up to reason. If what he says is true, then industrial nations – who have the greatest access to food and other resources as well as the lowest infant mortality rates – would have the fastest growing populations. The number one economy in the world – the U.S. – has only marginal population growth. The number two economy – Japan – has been in population decline for many years.

I also find it intellectually dishonest to say that we should not be beholden to any form of moral teaching from the likes of Moses, Christ, or Buddah and then chide us for the decisions we’ve made. If there is no moral authority greater than the individual human, how can anything we’ve done be considered wrong? (And just what does this "wrong" word mean, anyways?) Is he saying that with out Buddah, China would be a nation of about 100,000 hunter-gatherers? Why hasn’t the reign of staunchly secular communists reversed the trend at all in the past fifty years? They're as much a environment destroying agrarian community now as they ever have been.

By the way, I'm glad you are reading this book. It is very good to read this kind of drivel and ask questions about it and discuss it.

[Chu-Chu]

*giggles happilly* Wow, that was wonderful, termyt, definately some good points. Hmmmm....I need to write all these down......
Thank you, but the book happens to be not only annoying, but extremely boring. It just...drags...on.....and...on......and I haven't finished it yet. *cries* Oh well....