Hi Everyone! This is my first day and first post!
I have recently read a few books by Daniel Quinn. I really like his message. It inspired me to post about it in my words to see what everyone thinks.
Here we go:
Predator-prey relationships in the natural world provide control over populations of species, as does the availability of life-sustaining resources (sunlight for plants, etc…). For example, if a drought causes the decline of plant life in a certain area, the local deer population will undoubtedly decline in response. As a result, the lion population that depends on the deer for survival will also decline. More plant life results in more deer. More deer results in more lions. This is the natural state of things. The underlying premise behind this argument is that the availability of food directly affects the population. This logic can be applied to famine stricken areas of human habitation. Wealthy countries often have the availability to produce vast surpluses of food. These surpluses can be used to support a population where the local resources and economy has placed the people of the region in dire need. The food and economic aid that the wealthy country provides results in higher rates of survival in the famine stricken region, the result of which is an exponential increase of the population (sexual education and preaching abstinence is often of no consequence in these regions). This further exasperates the original problem, perpetuates suffering, and solidifies the population as a dependent state. In essence, the wealthy country has the power to pick-and-chose the populations which survive.
As a population increases, its demand for land and resources also increases. This leads to territorial disputes. In the state of nature, territorial disputes do not often end in fatalities. When a lion encroaches on the territory of another lion, the end result of the eventual conflict solidifies the territorial bounds until the next encroachment attempt. Daniel Quinn labels this behavior as “erratic retaliation.†A lion will not strategize the destruction of other lions that compete for the same resources. This is a quality unique to man. In search for resources, man has systematically destroyed competing cultures by means of brute force and assimilation, stripped and burned rainforests, over fished the oceans resulting in the destruction of entire ecosystems, and polluted the environment so badly that the Earth itself is responding by means of global climate change. It is clear that modern man has sidestepped the natural balance. The justification for this behavior is obvious:
“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every other living creature that moves on the ground’.†–Genesis 1:27
The pattern of modern cultural thought places man at the pinnacle of natural selection. This standard, along with the idea that man is inherently flawed starting at birth are ideologies common throughout every major religion on the planet. The accustomed thought process that man is born imperfect exonerates him of responsibility for the reckless and continued destruction of the Earth.
The acceptance of global warming, a politically correct name for the apocalypse, has spurred many programs in hopes to alleviate the strain of pollution on the global ecosystem. However, programs do not solve the problem; they act as if a stick were placed into a stream. They impede the flow, but the over all course has not changed. To change the course of the stream, the fundamental cultural ideologies that currently fuel the problem must be replaced with an entirely new global mindset that solves the problem with no programs at all.
I’ll be happy if you can find logical flaws in this. Please feel free to point them out. Tear it apart if you can. It leaves out a lot, but it’s not a book you know. Add to it if you want too.