Many of us have read one or the other of these two fascinating books. For those of you who have read both, there are some very interesting linkages between them that merit discussion. In the context of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, both have insights to offer. It is almost as if ISHMAEL wrote the specs and SPIRITWALKER performed the implementation  in production. SPIRITWALKER paints a Picture of a flourishing Leaver post-western-civilization society in which ISHMAELs concepts are seen in actual practice. They work. If we have a Picture of what the new Humpty Dumpty looks like, wont this have relevance to putting him back together again? Wont the Picture help us determine which pieces belong and which dont, and where they fit in? The purpose of this thread is to explore putting Humpty Dumpty back together again using ISHMAELs spec and SPIRITWALKERs Picture. If you havent read both books you can check out the following threads from the TB2000 Forum for some general background information:

SPIRITWALKER

The url is: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001AAx

ISHMAEL

The url is: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000KK9

There are probably more folks that have read ISHMAEL than SPIRITWALKER, and so I include the following two excerpts from SPIRITWALKER. In the first excerpt, the author is speculating on the reasons for the demise of Western Civilization. He makes a number of visionary visits to the future in which the end of Western civilization has already happened a long time ago. The setting for much of the book is where the author actually lives; present-day Hawaii/California/Nevada. His visionary visits take him to these same places 5000 years from now, to a world in which technology does not exist in our context. As you read the following excerpt, keep in mind that the book was published in 1995  before most of us ever heard the term Y2K.

Excerpt from SPIRITWALKER  Page 188

I lay very still in the darkness and tried to imagine what would happen if the islands were suddenly and completely isolated from the outside world. Hawaii is the most remote of all the worlds island groups  considerably more than 2,500 miles of open ocean lie between Honolulu and anywhere else. I devised the following scenario: The collapse of Western civilization would cause all imports of food and fuel to cease abruptly. Supplies of both would dwindle within days, rendering useless all motorized transports dependent on gasoline, from cars and trucks to boats and aircraft. Public utilities  water and electricity  would be lost, as would all medical services and supplies and all communication systems dependent upon electricity. Most critically, there would be ever-greater shortages of food and water in all communities, whose populations would be on foot. Access to food and water would be the ultimate factors making survival possible. Hoarding would only delay the inevitable. Only those people still capable of deriving all of their sustenance from the land and ocean would survive. Only those with knowledge of the traditional Polynesian strategies of survival would pull through  some ranchers, some farmers, and some fisherman perhaps  but only those able to adapt, and quickly. The rest of human societys jobs and occupations  the politicians, the business people, the lawyers, the realtors, the merchants  would instantly lose meaning and value. Only food, and those with the knowledge, skills, and ability to produce it, would have worth. Only those able to derive their sustenance in the traditional ways, without machinery or gasoline-powered craft, would survive  a very sobering thought.

I posted this first excerpt since I thought it might interest some folks in SPIRITWALKER, as it probably will ring some bells with many that have been pondering Y2K. More to the point of this thread is the following excerpt from page 200: As the survivors refocused on the ocean and the land as sources of life, religion would become reoriented toward what was most important  the natural world and its supernatural aspects. Ancient shamanic methods of living with and understanding nature would survive or be rediscovered, because they would be immediately appropriate  and because they worked.

I think that an interesting link exists between the two books, where SPIRITWALKER and ISHMAEL sort of converge. It is the area of how humans live in a post-western-civilization world. It is a convergence in that we are shown living examples of what ISHMAEL describes as the Leavers existing in reality in two separate manifestations 5000 years from now. It is a view of what Humpty Dumpty looks like after being put together again. In short, a narrative Picture. The surviving descendents of our species 5000 years from now are Leavers. Some live in what is now North America as nomadic hunter-gatherers. (Most of the story is set in the California/Nevada area) They exist fully cognizant of maintaining their balance with nature, and in compliance with ISHMAELs fundamental law of species survival. Simultaneously, another group is in Hawaii. They are organized into settlements that consist of a coastal fishing community and an inland farming community, where boundaries were determined by the presence of arable soil, suitable canoe landings, and the availability of fresh uncontaminated water. My initial impression is that these settlements started as Leavers, not Takers, though the Hawaiian settlements are already running the risk of becoming Takers.

Regardless of if you believe that the author of SPIRITWALKER actually had these visionary experiences or not, I think that links between the two books exist  and can offer us insights. If we have to build Humpty Dumpty all over again, will it be feasible to start with ISHMAELs blueprints, and a Picture from SPIRITWALKER of what he looks like after being put together. There are many related questions: Will we have to put Humpty Dumpty back together without much of the technology we currently have? If Y2K is a triggering event that leads to a very severe impact resembling the Infomagic scenario, will we as human beings by default start off as Leavers? Is it possible to somehow acquire at least some of the "Leavers" time-tested knowledge and skills now? Who has it, and where can we find it? Seems to me it would be worth the effort. After all, experience is an expensive teacher.

As the Chinese proverb on the last page of SPIRITWALKER says: Unless we change direction, we are likely to end up where we are headed. Many of us believe that we are going to be changing direction. And Soon. Perhaps we can help to determine that direction, and subsequently, where we are headed. The fundamental question that I have is do you think that it is possible to gain an understanding of how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again by using the concepts articulated in ISHMAEL, coupled with SPIRITWALKERs Picture or other references to actual Leavers societies? Can this help?

I would like to express my gratitude to Linda, who recommended SPIRITWALKER to me several weeks ago. We have traded a couple of e-mails about some of the ideas on this thread, which I may post later.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), August 28, 1999

Answers

This has a very utopian ring to it.

Unfortunately in order to live "in tune with nature" and use "the old ways" requires that about 280,000,000 people die (just on the North American Continent).

Those "old ways" just were'nt very efficient at supporting a large population.

That period of depopulation will look very Mad Max like and I can't imagine the destruction that will occur to the environment in the transition.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't see a viable way of getting from here to there.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), August 28, 1999.

LM: Utopian? It depends I think on which paradigm is used. From our current Takers perspective, yes, it is utopian. In fact, it is almost inconceivable, since it violates everything "Mother Culture" has taught us. From the Leavers perspective though, it is normal, and what we have now is insane and incomprehensible.

As far as your main point about how we get there from here, Ishmael says it can happen one person at a time. This will only be possible when there is an understanding of where each of the two paths lead. If we remain Takers, we continue towards near-extinction. The alternative is to pursue being Leavers, and try and define how we will be able to live and survive within the Leaver paradigm. If you subscribe to what Ishmael was saying, those are the choices, and if the shift isnt made there are going to be a whole lot less people around as a result.

Does that mean the shift might actually happen wihtout a catastrophe first? Probably not. To my mind, it will have to be forced upon us, and will not be a smooth, voluntary transition. People will die. History teaches us that true reform is only possible after enough people are badly affected. People resist change. Human nature. That doesnt mean that a catastrophic event is an absolute precondition to bringing about the change, just that it is, to me at least, highly unlikely to happen without this. If nothing else though, we have to try. Remember what the stakes are.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), August 28, 1999.

Since this is sort of a spiritual string where the readers are interested in the way humans can survive by returning into a natural balance with nature, I will mention that I have been personally inspired by the books of Ken Carey (Starseed Transmissions, etc.) The natural balance of nature has always evolved into new things.

Ken's communications with the supernatural aspect of our lives (maybe our collective soul) have been published as a reminder that the intention of our collective soul on earth is to create in the material plane. We have taken upon us the difficult task of mixing sunlight and stone in just the right amount of proportions to awaken the stone. The great earth garden into which we were born was developed by our soul in ages gone by, but we now transit into a time when the rate and direction of evolution is determined by human thought applied to the awakening of the earth. The species which prepared the garden in its sleep is now awakening to walk the garden in person, to make changes like an artist uses a canvas. We have always been doing this as our soul, we are now stepping in to do it in person. The great cultural developments and sufferings of the past 5000 years have been determined by the fact that some of us were awakening but most of us were still sleeping, drifting.

Some people think of 5000 years in the future as far away. Think back just a few hundred years. What was mankind before the printing press was developed, before musical notation was created? For better or worse, we have all taught ourselves an immense amount of things about the material world (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, applied to a myriad of technologies) in the last 300-400 years. At the turn of this century, only the most subtle visionaries could have estimated what would become of agriculture, transportation, communications, medicine before the year 2000, yet most of the seeds of what we have today were already in place then.

There is another type of seed which is visible now but has not grown as fast yet. These are the seeds of esoteric knowledge as captured in the trades of homeopathy, crystal healing, pendulum, kundalini yoga and hundreds of similar things. These are the seeds of morality held in the golden chalices of the mystical texts of our world. These are the seeds of perception of a life form which has learned about the way galaxies are created, and the sheer immensity of time and space.

In 1900, much of today technology would have been a miracle or a mystery (Madame Curie just was playing with isotopes and discovering X-rays). Only in the 1950s did we begin to suspect that DNA was the molecule of heredity. Perhaps in 100 more years, our race will have developed detailed knowledge in the areas we now consider metaphysics. Perhaps y2k is one way that our guardian angels are helping us to break away from the spell of our material successes for a few years to reunite with our spiritual powers.

Could telepathic communication be learned enough to make cellular phones obsolete? Or could cellular phones evolve into some type of surgical implant which would establish "telepathic technologies" as a standard essential of modern life 100 years down the road? To be honest about it, does the way we get there really matter (through spirit or technology) more than what we do when we are there?

If 100 or 1000 years down the road, our computers have become so sophisticated that they can think like people (just a lot faster) and our machines so sophisticated that they can reproduce themselves like humans (eating something and restructuring the atoms to make a child), would it really matter which "species" went out to explore space? We already send out probes. What if a few hundred years down the road our space probes are capable of experiencing beauty and bliss and sorrow? Would it be less if they went out in our stead? What if our machines were enabled to evolve faster than we are? What if they became more moral, more loving, what if we become like their pets, relics of the past, held in pastoral lives of flesh and blood, as a kind of living museum? What if the fusion of material technology and spiritual technology creates a great creature, much greater than anything we are today? What if this creature can love the biosphere and its creatures more than we do?

Why do we have to sit here and believe that y2k is the end ouf our technology? Y2k is a "right of passage" for our technologies, it will expose the great weaknesses, it will weed out the practices of waste. It will transfer command of our technologies away from large national governments and large corporations down to a scale where the spirit can enter into local decisions on use of technology.

Y2k is dangerous because we have not unified spirit and matter. We have found half of the sciences..now we must awaken the other half. Technology was not meant to lead overconsumption, but it was meant to be the way we continue to learn about and love our world. To those of us who have already learned to practice "voluntary simplicity" y2k is not such a threat.

Thom

-- Thom Gilligan (thomgill@eznet.net), August 28, 1999.

As I read this thread, I get the idea that not many people have had access to good history books. Don't fergit that in Roman days,they reported that even the most barbarian of thier neighbors had come to the conclusion that there was a self concious god existing. There was no shamanic golden age ever. I myself read the new england new age report on a big shamanic convention. Guess what the biggest concern was- that many shamans were using their "power" for personal squabbles and negative things. This was not a report ABOUT the shamans, this was the shamans talking about themselves. Good ole human nature, no one can leave it behind. Human nature remains very much the same. No amount of daydream believeing changes the past and the likelyhood is that we will behave as always. Genesis has an interesting quote, "what man has created, man will destroy, what god has created god will protect." The past was filled with hardship, and suffering. 5 minutes after the latest war has crashed through thier land, children are at play. The young people always are coming up and they adjust and they live. Forget about "mergeing spirit and matter", just try to love god, yourself, and others. One of my boys saw a show tonight on turtles that got tumors because of warming waters, he said how can we help the turtles? I said "dont worry, y2k will slow up the economy and nature needs us to come down a peg or two and this will do that."

y2k is good our desires are endless hardship is the norm the romans of 400 ad thought it was all supposed to go on forever they were in the way walk on the sunny side of the street even if the street is just a remnant of it's former glory your heart is independent

-- bill burke (bill52@rocketmail.com), August 29, 1999.

Bill Burke is on to something. A good knowledge of history requires a type of mental and academic discipline that is difficult to achieve under current cultural conditions, since the public mind is anesthesised by television and computers, among other things.

I can't comment on Spiritwalker or other such books, but I should point out that the big 'spiritual' books by Carlos Casteneda, which were a big deal in the '70s, were admitted to be a hoax by the author. However, that hasn't stopped people from believing all of it, Native American sages turning into hawks and all.

Such New Age blather is really a sort of adolescent self-compensation, much like the romantic fantasies of my teenage daughter. No matter, this has always existed and been expressed in every cultural era. Many thinkers have good reason to be dubious of Western rationalism, which after all was as responsible for Marxism as it was for the space program. Nontheless, simple observation reveals that Western ideas have triumphed, unequivocally, all over the world. The one notable exception has been the Western concepts of civil and human rights, which are alien to the Asian cultural mindset. And yet even here, we see that these ideas are growing even in China, hence their extreme paranoia over the growing democracy movement there, and their excessive persecution of sects like Falun Gong or Christianity.

The relevant questions here are: How badly will y2k break things? How will they be restored, and what will the resoration look like? The first question won't be answered for awhile, so any answers we look for to the rest will be purely speculative.

Whether we like it or not, we are creatures of a physical universe, and our solutions to our problems are going to be rational. It is also true that the often irrational human being is the focus and main actor in the drama. Religion, dreams, and the rest of our baggage will factor into the story as they always have, and not always positively. But the reality of Nature and the physical world is unconcerned with our psychological foibles. A rational case can be made for various scenarios, but the best results will be obtained more by clearheaded calculation that by ideology. I for one am of the opinion that, after some wobbles and dislocations associated with y2k, the world ten years from now will be pretty much like the world today, except that we will have learned to be much more careful about how we build that infrastructure, hopefully making it more environmentally and politically sustainable.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 30, 1999.

Someone once posted that it makes more sense to just state our opinions rather than trying to have a discussion centered around a specific book (in this case two books), which perhaps only a relative few have read. I started this thread anyway, as I thought there probably were some folks who had at least read Ishmael, since it was recommended by Mr. Yourdon himself. It doesnt appear to me that anyone so far who has posted has actually read the books, which I had hoped to center the discussion around.

I see what I think could be potential links between Ishmaels "philosophy" and a future recovery, which is at the heart of Eds project. Speculative? Yes, absolutely. I was proceeding on the unstated assumption that Humpty Dumpty would not resemble what we have today, and should have articulated this. If you expect the world to be much the same some years from now as it is today, the points I am trying to make (not very successfully) on this thread are moot, arent they? I do not expect the world years from now to be much like it is now. I expect change - significant enough change where I think a discussion of recovery can possibly include consideration of a shift to a different paradigm. Ishmael offers one. So do others I guess. For the purposes of discussion it's a plcae to start.

Perhaps I am wrong in this after all. I consider it likely that the people who can tell me why I am wrong in considering this idea are those that have actually read the books, or at least have read Ishmael, and I would especially value their opinions.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), August 30, 1999.

y2k has already changed my life, considerably. Rather than talking about spirituality, the blending of matter and spirit, rather than talking about voluntary simplicity and sustainable resources - the actions have evolved naturally within the course of life. The life altering event of y2k happened a couple years ago for me. I saw very soon that one can and should prepare as one sees fit, but much of that prep is changing the raw infrastructure of one's life. It takes months to get the items, the objects, the animals - then trial and error in learning how to make a good garden, how to can properly, how to make butter, cheese, etc. How to live differently.

Past a point there is no rational reason to buy more beans and rice.

So I've made a study for over the past year on trying to learn who and what an "individual" was prior to my lifetime. How have societies ordered themselves and how they have changed over long periods? What was meant then by simple living and sustainable resources? How has the manifestation of spirit evolved as various cultures came together? What would be a spirituality within myself which would balance both my broad internal life needs and my need to stay in harmony with surroundings and life, able to manifest compassion?

Unable to "do" much about the big wide world, it became easier to change my life in order that I have better balance now. This life will not change other than superficially with y2k, baring my area or person becoming caught up in events that are beyond my control.

I doubt that simple living with a philosophy of sustainable resources can be imposed externally, I think it must come from within the individual.

One must confront the totality of one's societal and environmental impact, then decide upon what and how one is going to try to life softer. Why buy a new computer, a new car, eat out several times a week, work just to pay bills and you don't even remember or have the purchases, why let our children be turned into consumers, why watch TV, paper or plastic? - why choose either? there is at least a 3rd way, is reusing or completely using better than recycling, how do we choose to interact with modern medicine, etc. Each of these and more must be confronted, both in analysis as to how they help and hinder our own matter/spirit balance and for their depth of environmental footprint.

No utopias for me. Humankind remains the same over very long periods, we still have those who want to lead, want to follow, want to bitch and do nothing, want to tell us they know more about the spirit and matter than we do, want others to leave us alone, need others, need meaningful work. The descriptor words and fads come and go over long periods of time - that which remains is ultimately human dignity, for those who wish it.

Y2k has been the point for me where I finally said i'm getting off the techno-tit culture. I find it of no real enjoyment, I find it demeaning, it makes me angry sometimes, it places no value upon me other than a producer of a product, and as a consumer. I decided I had enough.

Recognizing the spirit of place, the ability to exert considerable responsibility for my own food, water, and well-being, taking care of animals that take care of me - all give me grounding. Working with neighbors, sharing, caring, participating allows me a certain dignity. Cutting out much of the hurriedness of the pop culture from my life has allowed me to realize that I don't need much of what WestCiv is offering - and it is easier to relax. Not feeling guilty to sitting around after the chores are done. Working at one's own pace.

"it's all right now" - Free

I have no solutions for the masses, and am not even sure if it is possible for the numbers of today's masses to radically alter their lives. y2k surely appears to contain a high possibility to induce a radical alteration of the masses lifestyle, a change which gives me a bad feeling in regards to people's physical and psychological response.

Violence, bad governments, unjust laws, corrupted morals and ethics, depleted ecosystems, brigandige, starvation, mass migrations, etc have all happened before. And for most people they follow the crowd. However if you read closely and broadly you will notice that when the chaos becomes widespread there will be a self-selected group of people who just drop out. They are the first to get out of the way. They attempt to practice their spirit/matter balance in harmony, they attempt to live lightly, softly, they practice compassion. Perhaps they move to the mountain, perhaps the desert, perhaps a remote island - all have been used. And the people who do this are but a very small percent of one percent of the total population.

These days, barring a "10" scenario, I haven't much worry. But there is one aspect of our current WorldCiv which I find disconcerting when I move out into the 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, or 100000 year perspectives - and that concern is the massive amounts of ill contained toxics and poisons and radioactives we humans have generated either as products or as byproducts. In this respect, we, as the human race, are encountering a problem of type and magnitude for which there are no blueprints to deal. Very similar to y2k, but of much longer duration and ultimate planetary impact.

One of the prime lessons learned from y2k I would like to see would be the Civ take responsibility for long term (multi-generational time frames) toxic and use impact upon the planet. I believe the problems are within our ability to handle. It remains to be seen as to whether or not the body politic will utilize the y2k learning situation and create a way of life in response whereby long term planning and excution of the same will become the norm. A way of life in which quality is placed before quantity, working with Nature not the rape of Nature, a Civ in which the person is more important than the State. It will come from each of our hearts and our actions now.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), August 30, 1999.

Hey Rob

Sorry, you could probably blame me for taking the topic a bit away from Ishmael.

I actually liked Mitchells posting which just followed your plea to get back on track.

Some of the thoughts in this thread have been around humans being the same for a long time. On some levels yes (love hate greed generousity, etc.). But on other levels it would be hard to argue that humans of today live much at all like those of ONLY 5000 years ago. The great "threat" of y2k is that it threatens a system which is only newly created (global information) in the most recent decades.

Humankind is obviously at some type of threshold. Like Mitchell (and many others) would say, we got to get our act together about the ecology.

Some people make fun of the idea of blending spirit and matter. But in truth what have we been doing. Thought would be considered by many to be something not so very material. In truth, we really don't understand the mechanisms of thought. And yet the world of today is being devastated by machines of our design, arrising out of our thoughts.

Thanks for giving us a question that allowed a little bit of new age dreaming to go with the usual dose of fundamentalist christianity. Hope to return and hear people go into more detail about Ismaels approach to a post y2k world and what it might look like.

Thom

-- Thom Gilligan (thomgill@eznet.net), August 30, 1999.

Hi Thom, I "did time" in a cult. guru maharaji. oh well, a sucker born every minute? I was young and didn't know about liars and narcissists and those that enslave via words.

I dont mean to make fun of anyone here that said "light and matter", maybe if the person would retry the wording and say it in a way that explains the idea. Top evolution/DNA guys at this point are coming to the thinking that conciousness is in a world of it's own like energy and matter. I think human nature shows evidence for the case that there is an intelligent self aware larger part of conciousness, or, god.

New age/buddhist/other groups think it is a non self aware "oneness". Lots of gaps in that theology. Number one, who made the "wheel"? The after death structure. No answer to that one from the oneness crowd.

When someone presents the case that our post y2k destiny is to come into the light and leave our failings behind, I think that runs contrary to the facts that no one is able to do such a thing and we are stuck with a nature that troubles us and drives us to recognise our limits to some extent and our need to ask -the SELF CONCIOUS oneness, god, for help.

Even if religion looks nutty, it doesnt make the core premise, there is a god, wrong. It is a cruel thing to tell people that they should "enlighten themselves". NO ONE has done it yet, and it is not our failing, it is not to be done, and it is not a lesson of y2k.

-- bill burke (bill52@rocketmail.com), August 30, 1999.

I knew that a lot of people had read Ishmael. But Spiritwalker? I found this book (o.p.) a couple of years ago, and was much impressed. (As I was with Ishmael.)

Quinn continues his exploration of what might be called "The Cause and Cure of Modern Civilization" in The Story of B and My Ishmael, both of which I recommend.

I do think Quinn equivocates on the consequences of returning to a "Leaver" society. I have to agree with LM: there is no way from here to there which retains the current population. Too many people are on the planet now for that. There is simply not enough space for every family to have a garden of its own, sufficient for its needs. There is certainly not enough game to feed us all even for a week. Even Spiritwalker postulates a very substantial reduction in world population (through nuclear war, as I recall.)

Garrett Hardin, in his 1968 essay, The Tragedy of the Commons makes the point very cogently. Essential reading, in my opinion. (The website linked here contains his full text, along with several commentaries by others.)

He expands on this theme:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Moving on:

Forrest Covington asserts, Whether we like it or not, we are creatures of a physical universe...

I respond that, whether we like it or not, we are creatures in a universe which is not only physical. ("Physical" here signifies whatever can be touched or measured or felt using the commonly recognized senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell.) Limiting the "universe" in this way rejects integral aspects of everyone's experience.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 30, 1999.

Hi Tom. Good to talk with you again. Thanks for the post and link. I think the only way to get from here to there is if the transition includes a truly significant decline in the current 6 billion inhabitants of the planet. Consider the following brief excerpt from the link you provided above: Recognition of Necessity - Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population problems is this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density. As the human population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another.

I think he nailed it with Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

That is the essence of what Ishmael calls the Law of Limited Competition, which is applicable to all species. Under the Taker mythology, which is the story we are currently enacting, humans do not live according to this law, and the eventual price to be paid is that of near-extinction. I wonder if after such a calamity, a return to a Leaver perspective by the survivors would actually be more likely than a continuation of the current Taker mythology.

I would really like to know the reason(s) Ed recommended Ishmael, particularly on a Y2K site (TB2000), since after thinking about the various responses that are on this thread it doesnt look like theres much chance for conceptual applicability to Humpty Dumpty, which is something I was looking for.

Anyone know why?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), August 31, 1999.

"...it doesnt look like theres much chance for conceptual applicability to Humpty Dumpty, which is something I was looking for. Anyone know why?"

My guess is that hardly anyone has been able to see any realistic way to leave the current Taker culture. No Leaver culture we know (there are only a few at most) is looking for new members, or could survive a massive influx. Is it possible to form a new Leaver culture? I myself can't imagine how.

As society is presently organized, virtually everyone is compelled either to work for wages or to depend on someone else who works for wages. Everyone is technically free to drop out of the workforce, but whoever does so immediately encounters critical survival issues.

Against that awkward fact, can any "restructuring" of corporate America really incorporate Leaver principles? Such as, "use only what you need, no more." CEO's of large firms may not 'need' the pay scales they are now accustomed to -- but who among them is likely to change that part of the system? Publicly held firms may not 'need' to announce increasing earnings each quarter -- but how many of their controlling shareholders are likely to vote to change that part of the system?

I can only hope someone else can be more optimistic.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 31, 1999.

Well, I sure do respect the crowd Yourdon attracts. After reading the leaver, taker posts, It occured to me that perhaps history will help us in this case also. Could the case be made that we have had a taker situation for some generations and the natural(?) factors that kept the human numbers managable were disease and war. We have crowed about evolving the situation to the point where we have disease and war controlled. Perhaps we were wrong. Russia is hosting a TB epidemic, china is waiting to spring a new improved version of the chicken plague, and doctors are alarmed at the shrinking antibiotic situation. y2k will kill people, during the depression public health officials said no one died of starvation, people were starving, but disease killed them first before they actually starved to death so they made that claim that no one was starving. War? we will find a way. My point is that it has happened in a taker situation before, that the ranks are thinned and the taker society continues. The scale of our taker society is so vast now that, well, the Romans collapsed in 400+AD, and the repercussions were just 100% disruptive to those in that world. The ranks WILL be thinned. We may watch it.

-- bill burke (bill52@rocketmail.com), September 01, 1999.

Hi Rob,

Sorry to be so long responding. You know I always enjoy participating in one of your threads.

Been a while since I've enjoyed Wesselman's jaunt. I must admit it wasn't my favorite futurecast, (for that, see "Always Coming Home" by Ursula LeGuinn) but I did identify with his Buddhist/animist amalgam. Nice spiritual feel without giving the show away. (Rising sea levels was the ostensible cause of the crash. He devoted only a few paragraphs to the exposition.)

Ishmael is becoming more than a cult classic it seems. Simple and underwritten so as to appeal to a wide audience, Quinn covers a lot of the reasons we came to be the way we are. Frustratingly, he leaves few clues as to how we may pull the Taker Thunderbolt out of its civilization-destroying dive. While unlikely that we'll ever be able to return to a Leaver lifestyle, it's not unthinkable that, through a new bioethic, we may rediscover the Leaver attitude. My friend, a major contributor to the ISHlist discussion forum and an ardent fan of Quinn, likes to say, "We are Takers. And we must save the world."

An aside: This whole thing is too much like a bad or predictable movie. Whether Y2K or an environmental crash, it's too much of a cliffhanger. I keep expecting the Cavalry to come riding over the ridge any minute. Nobody has improved on the "Deus ex Machina" as a literary device since it was immortalised by the Greek dramatists all those eons ago. By the way, has anyone noticed how many loving Christians think that decimation or extinction is the way to go?

Along with all those other optimistic Doomers, I keep trying to think of ways we can soft-crash the Thunderbolt. I have reason to suspect that this may be the last chance for Intelligence to develop on this particular rock; I'd hate to see us blow it entirely.

I first read "Tragedy of the Commons" in 1972 and perforce, ever since, have always compared any environmental position to Garret Hardin's. What is most appealing to me about Professor Hardin's bioethics philosophy is its reliance on logic alone for its conclusions. I think you might appreciate that, Forrest. No Hoogy-Moogy, New-Age or retro-spirituality required. No conventional or avant-garde "beliefs" necessary. If you subscribe to the basic premise: IF it is considered desirable for H. Sap. to continue as part of our planetary family of critters, THEN a thoughtful person will adapt a moral/ethical posture and worldview that furthers that goal. Situational ethics? You bet. Moral relativism? Of course. As Hardin points out, decisions are always made in the context of time, place and circumstance. Why should we defeat our purpose (survival) by adhering to outmoded strictures, inappropriate to our current milieu? Just because it's easier or more convenient to subscribe to an absolutist moral stance? Intellectual and ethical laziness is not going to save our homoplasm. I'm convinced that Quinn is a great admirer of Garret Hardin. His advice---to go with whatever works to encourage balance---is right out of the Professor's playbook. It's totally in keeping with Nature's attitude, as is apparent from the variety of coping mechanisms on display to any active, enthusiastic observer of the natural order.

Thanks Tom, for linking that "Tragedy" page. The additional disquisitions add immeasurably to the message of Hardin's essay. Although I've read most of them before, either in Hardin's books or on Jay Hanson's website (www.dieoff.org), having them on one site is big ju-ju.

Another bioethicist of whom I am deeply fond is Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris, biologist and anthropologist (http://www.ratical.com/lifeweb/). Hers is a more spiritual approach to the same message. Her background in sociology and intimate familiarity with indigenous people shines a Leaver light on our predicament, as well as illuminating a possible path out of this slough of despond.

None of these highly aware people seem to be giving up on humanity as a viable organism, part of the panoply of Gaian life. As depressed as I often get, neither have I. I hope you don't either.

Hallyx

"We wait, breathlessly, for a Deus ex Machina, realizing only to late that our intelligence is a sword made of feathers and our faith but a gossamer shield for our vanity."

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

FWIW, found this Q/A regarding Y2K on the Ishmael site:

The Question (ID Number 378)...

I would like to know Mr. Quinn4s thoughts regarding the Y2k computer "millennium bug." To some experts, this could be the worst problem of the century and maybe of human history. Could this be one of the signals, that nobody can neglect, as the Takers culture collapses? If it happens, would it help to start a new vision of the world?

...and the response (evidently from Daniel Quinn):

The millennium bug is an example of short-sightedness and carelessness that may have vastly disruptive effects (or may just have some temporary and minor effects). It is no more a signal than AIDS is a signal. Disruption alone (especially when its cause is merely human stupidity) never prompts people to advance to a new vision, it prompts them to revert to magic and superstition.

Those of you who have followed my posts know that at times I ask what many folks feel are difficult questions, in an attempt to try and clarify my own thoughts. This was certainly the case here, and I want you all to know that you have helped me clarify things once again. Thank you.

We seem to have reached the point on this thread where, not surprisingly, we have no empirical evidence of Taker sustainability, and yet there is also no clear path to a Leaver paradigm shift (short of it eventually happening as a result of a near-term global catastrophe as in Spiritwalker). Hope may indeed be all thats left, yet who among us can relinquish it? We arent quite at journeys end - standing in view of Dantes indelible sign.

This leads me back to wondering what Ed had in mind when recommending Ishmael. I have read other of his recommendations, and there is usually some tie-in with Y2K. It was my assumption that in the case of Ishmael, the tie-in was with post-Y2K recovery, which is why I started this thread, my first on Humpty Dumpty. Perhaps he just thought it was a really good book and there isnt any linkage to Y2K after all.

Ed, can you please clarify this for me  do you see a link between Ishmael and Y2K?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), September 01, 1999.

Rob..."We seem to have reached the point on this thread where, not surprisingly, we have no empirical evidence of Taker sustainability, and yet there is also no clear path to a Leaver paradigm shift." I think Mitchell Barnes above has a view of the path. For those of us who have seen disaster looming and have taken steps to become more self-sufficient, we have often also discovered - quite by accident - a more sustainable lifestyle, and, if not a more leisurely pace, then a more rewarding style of living. We may be the seeds of a new/old lifestyle. Too bad there are so few of us who have discovered this before disaster strikes.

Unfortunately, as others have mentioned, sustainability may not be possible at current population levels. Not even close. But we always knew that didn't we? How we get from here to there is not likely to be pretty. But we have not paid our way in the world for a long time. Its dues time. Our way of life and the world's huge population has depended on vast quantities of a finite amount of energy. Perhaps if some other source of energy is developed quickly enough we could bungle along for a while longer, but sooner or later we exceed the carrying capacity of this big blue marble. If the power grid and the supply of oil/gas are affected by Y2K, that will be sooner, rather than later.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 01, 1999.

Hi Linda. Yes, Mitchell describes well many of the changes that have taken place to varying extents by people like us that have been increasing their self-reliance due to uncertainty - be it from Y2K or other uncertainty. I have consistently encouraged others, both on the forum and off, to do this since it makes sense to do anyway. It is a pity that the numbers of people increasing their self-relaince is so small, but it is a start. It is a very small path, with not many on it, and not a major cultural shift, but everything takes time right? Sadly, there may not be enough time for so many though, if Y2K ends up being near the top of the scale especially.

We did know about the lack of sustainability, which is why I wrote 'not surprisingly'. And you can see from what I posted here before that I agree with what you are saying both about dues 'coming due' and it not being pretty at all. There are consequences to our inactions as well as our actions. Getting back to my last question, perhaps the relationship between Ishmael and Y2K has something to do with out-of-the-box thinking. Certainly, Ishmael offers a different ("jolting" was the word Ed used) perspective, and Y2K is without precedent, and so requires out- of-the-box solutions since the problems and challenges are also likely to be out-of-the-box. Just a thought.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), September 01, 1999.

'Scuse me for stepping in from "outside", I'm a good friend of Hallyx's and he made me aware of this thread.

Just a couple of points of clarification:

1. bill burke's comments that access to history books is scarce reveal the tip of an iceberg in thinking about the subject of Ishmael and Spiritwalker. I wish to remind those who seem to have not read those two books that all history books begin 3 million years into the story, arrogantly overlooking what Quinn calls the time before the "Great Forgetting". 3 million years in which the world worked flawlessly with humans in it. It was that missing period of the golden age of shamans, btw, bill.

2. The point of the Great Forgetting is that we need not have a "blueprint" to put Mr. Dumpty back together again. There are lots of right ways to live, and once we land the Taker Thunderbolt (soft OR hard, as Hallyx explains)the pieces of how we are to live begin to fit themselves back together. How? ... read the folks writing in Deep Ecology forums. You ask any deep ecologist what s/he sees for the future and he/she will shy away from scaring you about the next 1000 years; they will dissemble a lot about all those people dying. But after that they will give you good solid information about how good it's gonna be in 3000 years.

In "My Ishmael" Quinn tackles the problem of Humpty's reassembly, asking us to imagine an alien culture from another galaxy come to earth with all the answers to this dilemma. That's what we expect, isn't it? ... some arcane or secret answer or inacessible advanced technology from someone with answers. That's what we're waiting for. And then the gorilla turns the tables by gently explaining that those aliens are here today and have been here all along, living gently within the biosphere. The "primal peoples" as Arne Naess calls them -- the leavers.

We just have to listen.

thanks for the forum

tom

-- Tom Warren (tomvwarren@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

Tom: Thanks for the post. Sorry it's taken so long for me to reply. Looks like I have a couple of sequels to read from D. Quinn, as well as one called Medicine Maker that continues Spiritwalker. Perhaps I should have read these before starting this thread.

Mr. Yourdon's probably been so busy that he hasn't seen my question to him on this thread about what he feels the link is between Ishmael and Y2K. Oh well.

Hardliner: Per our conversation on TB2000 today, thesonofdust@yahoo.com works

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), September 11, 1999.

I finally finished Ishmael today, so I'm apt to ramble. After I've had a few days to digest, I'll prolly come back and ramble some more :-)

First, as I understand it, Ishmael was not against technology per se. In fact he continually made the point that there are many ways to live in the leaver's mythology, and that technology could well be one of them. What he says is that technology cannot be pursued to the detriment of other species. That mankind must live as animals in that some must die of hunger (which, as he points out, millions already do). That a fundamental shift must take place individually to change society corporately. That the shift is one going from believing that man is inately superior to other animals to believing that man is just animal and must live with and respect other animals. That our chief resistance to this shift is tied to a mistrust of the world (God) to provide us with enough.

Do I think that Y2K in and of itself will cause such a shift? No. Unless the survivors hear about the 'new' (old) myth and choose to live by it, nothing will change. Quinn states that survivors will perpetuate the taker society, when talking of the thunderbolt hitting the ground, and I agree.

What may happen, if our civilization is destroyed, is that there may be some few more pockets of leavers created. And if they are not corrupted by the takers, there may be a slightly increased chance of the next civilization being leavers, rather than takers. However, Ishmael never dealt with greed. Can we start to be greedy for the life of the earth, rather than the life of our family?

If nothing else, Ishmael challenges me to examine my beliefs to determine (yet again) what is of man and what is of God. And to re-think how I can change to live more in tune wiht what is of God and less with what is of man.

Thanks for the thread, Rob. I don't know if/when I'd have read Ishmael otherwise.

-- Tricia the Canuck (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

great thread, rob, i don't have much to add. like many others above, i don't believe we can return to a leaver society without weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. the key will be the makeup of the pockets that survive, if there is to be any improvement at all.

i have recently read ishamel, and was left breathless by some of the ideas within. it was quite an eye-opener. thank you for passing along the recommendation on spiritwalker. i need to add that to my list along with ishmael's sequels.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

It seems to me that, as usual, we humans are struggling to find a way of life that suits us. This, of course, was Adam's sin, choosing for himself what is right and what is wrong. If, instead, we would study to determine how the giver of all life says we should live and then live that way we might be surprised to find the optimal lifestyle, for the lifegiver has as one of his goals the contentment of those that live.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), October 14, 1999.

It occurs to me that Mother Culture loves to say things like : "Isn't that utopian?", as if the mere use of the word utopia successfully discounts any notions of building a better way to live upon the earth. The next statement that comes from Mother Culture's loudspeakers is often: "Oh,...that's such adolescent idealism. Haven't you given that up yet?"

If the given is human beings give up totalitarian agriculture practices, and population decreases as it will as shown scientifically,...then arguments about how "we can't do that with so many people" become invalid.

The task for those of us seeking to midwife the something new becomes teaching others about the necessity of living as if we were only one species of thousands of species that survive BECAUSE we are intrinsically linked,...and concurrently modeling by the changes we make in how we each live/survive. For me thatt means changing myself from the cultural consumer norm to a person who grows, gathers, uses resources as if they did not belong to me alone. I am B.

I see I've switched to ramble mode...sorry...more later

Vision is the river, and we who have been changed are the flood. -from "The Story of B"

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 15, 1999.

"When we stop believing what we have been told, we find that the truth is there but our ability to recognize it has been numbed and buried deep within by the strata of the history of individuals, of cultures and of the species. It is the re-awakened, collectively-formulated women's perspective that proves the human species was not Mother Nature's mistake. By adopting it, women, and the men who follow them, can reverse the destruction of human beings and the planet."

This, a quote from a book entitled "For-Giving", by Genevieve Vaughn It is a very "Ishmael" kind of book; a critique of exchange economy as practiced on Planet Earth, with outline of how to build something better. Available to read in it's entirety at this URL:

For-Giving

http://www.for-giving.com/fg2/fg2.html#chapter1

I am B.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 15, 1999.

Did I really not close that tag...grrr...all better now.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 15, 1999.

Well, now. I am pleasantly surprised that there is still interest in this old thread, and more good discussion. Since last posting, I have read My Ishmael and The Story of B. Both are excellent. They tell the same basic story but from different perspectives. I found Quinns description of our current educational system (detention centers) very interesting (from My Ishmael), while the concepts of how we become part of the solution (become B) is a main concept of the third book. His new book is out now and is called Beyond Civilization. In it, (according to one source) he provides some answers to the OK, I am with you, but What do we do? question that the previous books evoke. Cant wait to get that next.

Tricia : You summarized some of Ishmaels main points well. As far as greed, it is part of Human Nature, which is immutable. Quinn acknowledges the existence and viability of Human Nature yet is careful to draw a distinction between true human nature and behaviors which are at root manifestations of Mother Culture. I think it was in the second book that this was done, but am not sure.

Cowardly Lion: OT for this thread, but you simply have to go over to TB2000 and post on the FRL #10 cat thread! After all, you are a Lion. LOL. As far as your main point, it is discussed previously on this thread and hopefully more light will be shed on that aspect in the new book. As far as Spiritwalker, the main reason I found it interesting was because it was a look at the daily life of leavers, in the Ishmael context.

George: You post is precisely the point. We as human beings lived according to natural law (or from a spiritual perspective Gods Law) for millions of years. But for the last 10,000 years we have been living in violation of some of these fundamental laws. However, inviolable laws they remain,like gravity, and eventually there is a price to be paid for breaking the law (of limited competition for example). Unfortunately, eventually is coming sooner rather than later.

Donna: You have personalized how in some respects you have become B. What a wonderful post. Your point about changing myself from the cultural consumer norm to a person who grows, gathers, uses resources as if they did not belong to me alone goes to the heart of not only what B was saying, but also describes a motivational factor for many who are now trying to increase their self-reliance due to Y2K or other uncertainty. They go together. For life.

p.s. Great quote!

ALL: My question to Ed Yourdon remains unanswered by him, for whatever reason, and I remain curious. (and a little disappointed too, truth be told)

Anyway, is anyone willing to hazard a guess at what the link is that he may have perceived between Y2K and Ishmael, or even if there is a link? Or should I just start a new question about this and direct it towards him? What do you think?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@want.toknow), October 15, 1999.

Houston Chronicle Oct. 12, 1999, 8:26PM

Saving Earth, saving ourselves

By THOM MARSHALL

SIX billion of us and still growing.

The United Nations said the number of human beings sharing the planet reached that astounding total Tuesday. And Daniel Quinn said crossing the 6 billion mark "has no special significance to the human race." Quinn, a writer who has lived in our city for the past couple of years, is the author of Ishmael, which in 1991 won the Turner Tomorrow Fellowship $500,000 first prize for fiction that produces creative and positive solutions to global problems. He's since done other works in the same vein, including Beyond Civilization, which is so new, the ink is still damp.Quinn said the actual significant world population number is that point at which the system that supports human life collapses. No one knows what that number is. Could be it is a smaller number than 6 billion. "For most speakers on the subject," said Quinn, "the population issue boils down to this: Will we be able to feed our growing population? For them, if the answer is yes, the problem is solved. For me, the answer is yes, undoubtedly, and far from solving the problem, this is the problem " Losing 200 species a day" He explained that the biomass of the planet is a fixed amount, meaning it does not increase as the human population increases but only shifts from one group of species to another. Which explains why an estimated 200 species are becoming extinct every day."As these species vanish," Quinn said, "they don't just vanish into thin air, they vanish into us. ... In other words, we are systematically converting the biomass of the Earth into human mass."So, while the world could feed a growing human population for some time to come, Quinn said, the end result is not pleasant to contemplate. "We are heading at a rapid rate toward a total global biological community consisting entirely of humans and rice," he said. "And this simply won't work. The fundamental planetary systems that sustain life on Earth cannot conceivably function in such a setting --and who in the name of God would want them to?" Ishmael is now studied in hundreds of schools across the country, Quinn said. As a result of reaching that audience, he hears from many people age 14 to 20 who "are in despair" about world overpopulation and related problems. He said the two teens who killed 12 fellow students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., before turning their guns on themselves, represent a symptom of such despair among young people."They saw nothing in their future," Quinn said. He said that in the early 1950s, when he was in high school, he also was "an outcast," despised by other students, "one of the most hated kids in school. ... I made a point of being loathsome." Not that he was a poor student. He was "good at school," he said, "but I was different. I've always been different. I remain very different."

One of the biggest differences between Quinn back then and social-outcast kids today, he said, was "I knew the world was out there for me and I could do anything I wanted to." A hellish outlook He saw plenty of opportunity, plenty of reason to hope. But now, as the millennium draws to a close, there are more than twice as many humans as there were then, thousands of other species have become extinct, and the future looks pretty bleak. "Our grandchildren will live in hell," Quinn said. Unless we can change the way we look at the world. That is his hope, the motive behind his writing. He said thousands of people have written him letters and e-mail saying: "You've changed the way I see the world. ... Thank you for showing me I'm not crazy." Laws can't do it. Too slow, Quinn said. It too often takes years to pass a law to prevent some industry from doing something harmful to the Earth's ecology, and too often takes more years of court battles before the damaging practice is stopped. Changing the way we view our human population and realizing that as we grow other species diminish is the fastest way to put hope and opportunity back into the future, Quinn said.

Thom Marshall's e-mail address is thom.marshall@chron.com

Hallyx

"Any cause is a lost cause without a reduction in population."---Paul Ehrlich

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), October 16, 1999.

Thanks, Hal, for the recent comments from Quinn. I find myself in full agreement with him about the level of despair, in young (and older) alike,...it fairly screams "Elephant! There's an elephant in the room, and why isn't anyone seeing it? And if you're seeing it why aren't you talking about it?"

In the wee hours,...(my clock is all off from last night's earthquake. ) in the wee hours,...being one acquainted with despair and antly in the last 40+ years, I wonder about the search for meaning, purpose. Having just spent more time with teens in the last week than in the previous 2 years contemplating their futures is like a nice big bucket of icewater in the face. Hey, I know this icewater...Modeling purposeful living upon the planet is an awe-filled activity for me.

LOL. Something about the middle of the night and saving the world causes my mind to leap and hop about.

Gotta rein in the leaps or at least get them to hop in formation. I'm Thinking about the infinite causes of human perception change. What causes me, you, anybody to have one of those scintillating shifts in perception Fritjof Capra is wont to point to as critcal for changing the world.

Everyone? When you hear the words crisis of perception vis a vis changing the world what comes to your mind(s)?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 17, 1999.

Hi Hallyx. Good to hear from you again. Thanks for posting the latest and greatest from Quinn. I think that anyone who heard the announcement of 6 billion, and also read his book(s), probably would have liked to know his own reaction - which you provided.

Donna: Starting to ask vexing questions huh? LOL. My guess is that your "crisis of perception vis a vis changing the world" could be as simple as; 'We may want to change but don't have a clue how.' Here the underlying assumption is an acknowledgement that the world should be changed. If we do not assume this, then the "crisis perception" would be a result of needing the change but not acknowledging (or perceiving) the need for it. What do you think?

-- (sonofdust@six.billion), October 17, 1999.

Agreed, Rob. I see the need as critical. As Quinn said through Ishmael and B,...the challenge becomes assisting others to "see the bars of the cage",...then "what to do" as individuals, and in cooperation with others. I thought that is what Ed was driving at with the entire Humpty Dumpty concept. In my worldview Humpty fell a long time ago,...but perhaps the aftermath of the fall has not been perceived by many until Y2K and other world pick-up sticks started shifting around. It is somewhat troubling to me to come to this discussion and see more of the same as on TB2000. Is not the given that Humpty has fallen,...is in mid-fall,...pieces visible needing sweeping or mending?

I began putting Humpty back together,...part of my effort was in teaching my children that we are NOT the sole species on the planet and contrary to Mother Culture, the planet was not designed solely for humans. We are part of the deep ecology of the planet and it's high time we started behaving as such.

How about one something to do being: non-participation in one thing at a time that contributes to the wheezing, gasping along of the old harmful ways. Find out about anti-consumerism...and what each of us can do daily to stop contributing to the marketing madness of non-value. Use things up...wear them out...give away what you are not using,...do not replace if I don't need. And maybe more basic would be to individually figure out what is "need",...and what is "want"...and study how advertisers and corporations manipulate human definitions of need/want. I'm not necessarily advocating the life of an asthete, living in a cave; 180 degrees from harmful is not necessarily beneficial.

Ideas anyone?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 17, 1999.

Donna: Thanks for taking a stab at what Ed may have had in mind as far as a link between Y2K and Ishmael. Certainly, I think that this thread goes to the heart of Humpty Dumpty (which is one reason I am perplexed he hasnt responded).

You asked  Is not the given that Humpty has fallen,...is in mid- fall,...pieces visible needing sweeping or mending? To some of us, yes, but to the majority I would have to say that the given is the status quo  the continuance of whatever the present trend is. The opposite of a major change of any kind.

I was LOL when reading what you just posted about need vs. want  dont know if you ever saw my thread on this subject  here it is should you care to look (It is one from the series for newbies):

What you need to know

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@need.want), October 17, 1999.

I'm not surprised, Rob. My experience of you online here/and TB2000 is that you're sensitive to your world, and pretty dang sharp. I'll check out that old thread on need vs want. A bigtime rant in my life....

Be well....more later.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 17, 1999.

Ishmael! It's great that this thread is continuing! My 2 cents-Is it possible to for a Taker society to evolve into a Leaver one? It would be necessary for significant numbers of people to believe or at least ponder the following. 1-that it might be to their own personal advantage to limit family size and population growth. 2- That life forms other than people have the right to exist 3-That there is much satisfaction in not being stuck in a CONSUME mentality. 4-That others have the right to make (and live)different choices. If a majority of people in a society believed and lived these ideas,then I think it might just be possible to consciously change into a Leaver orientation. As Quinn points out,one of the keys in studying Taker history is to recognize the totalitarian nature of the revolution. Like Europeans coming here in pursuit of their own freedom-maybe at first there was a little of the live and let live attitude,but it changed rather quickly. What it boiled down to is that you(native americans)have no right to live in the manner that you see fit. We have more soldiers and weapons and will force you live like us or starve. Pretty much the same thing in many places other than North Amer of course. Now if by some stroke of magic I was absolute ruler and tried to force everyone to live a Leaver lifestyle,it would be doomed(remember what the Khymer Rouge tried to do in Cambodia in the 70's?). For a Leaver lifestyle to work people must believe in it voluntarily and whole- heartedly. It puzzles me at times,seems with so many people stressed out,discontented at loose ends,emotionally and spiritually that maybe in some crazy way it might be possible for larger numbers of people to be open to these ideas. Guess it's not likely but I can always dream-Howie

-- Howie (biggguy79@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

Howie: Welcome to the discussion, and thank you for your post.

Yes, there are many that are stressed, disconnected, and at loose ends, and one would think that given this people would at least be open to change. They arent. As I posted previously, people resist change. Change happens usually because it is forced upon us. Ask yourself if you know of anybody in a bad situation that simply tolerates it, rather than making the effort to change it. See what I mean?

If you agree, then the question becomes: What will force the change? One answer is necessity. That is why the need for change is such an important first step. We cannot solve a problem if we do not even perceive that a problem exists. Sometimes, it takes a second problem (that cant be ignored) to get us to acknowledge the existence of other problems that were always there. Some of us look to a moderate (or severe) impact from Y2K as being a potential wake- up call in this context.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@change.happens), October 18, 1999.

"Western civilization" is rooted in what is called "natural law." This institutionalizes human nature as law. When man mixes his labor with a material object it has a special relationship to him acknowledged as "property." The "thing" (land, trees, animals, etc.) becomes an extension of him. The "relationship" to the thing becomes "ownership" or the socially acknowledged right of exclusive use, enjoyment and disposal. The accumulation of this property is wealth.

The drive to create and control "property" is natural. It derives both from the drive for self-actualization and from our fears that resources necessary for our survival will not be accessable in the future and the attempt to influence that by institutionalizing control. This drive is less obvious among nomadic peoples where the opportunity to create property is more limited to portables. In those cultures, the fear tends to manifest in "magical" beliefs that certain rites and cermonies will influence the future.

In our current culture, division of labor and economic institutions have allowed man to translate his individual labor into a units of exchange weighted by "value" and to mix his labor on a raw resource with many other men. Some of the consequence have been the accumulation of wealth beyond need and an unequal distribution of wealth among people. Wealth can become pathological when the drive to acculmulate it becomes obsessive and the driving force of the entire culture. ("He who dies with the most toys wins.")

There are many "cures" possible: increased emphasis on the value of art or craft in creating property; increase in faith or magic to appease the fear of the future; increased emphasis on social relationships - partnerships, family, clan to strengthen the position of the individual in addressing his innate fear; and self-control of population expansion.

Many hope that y2k will offer an opportunity in crisis to realign our cultural relationship to property. I, myself, favor the Jeffersonian concept of the agrarian lifestyle where craft has greater emphasis - e.g. strengthening and deepening the property relationship. To me, the "illusion" of control and the addressing of those innate fears through greater faith is the type of culture most satisfactory to me. It is also my heritage.

I would not find that the nomadic/magical culture would appeal to me at all and would do little to address my underlying fear (particularly as a female.) I also would find that a population moving through my land hunting and gathering would conflict with my sedimentary concept of property. Some cultures are not compatable. I think we know that.

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), October 18, 1999.

I just reread an interview in Skeptic Magazine with Garrett Hardin, author of "The Tragedy of the Commons", (among others). In it he speaks of the notion of "sustainable growth" that entered into the debate about (now) 10 years ago, or so, and is now largely shown to be impossible. What he proposes is limits that lead to static state,...limits, limits, limits...that word so ill-received in the last few hundred years or more.

Skeptic Magazine has a URL I don't have bookmarked. The interview is from Volume 4, Number 2, 1996. It's worth a read if you have time for a trip to the local library or a web search.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

I'm going to cross-post this thread, as it pertains particularly to this discussion. From TB2000:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001apM

>a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001 apM">Tao of the 21st Century, The Management of Chaos

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

Oops. For want of a few keystrokes the tag was lost. Aphorism for the day.

Tao of the 21st Century, The Management of Chaos

That'll teach me to try to cook breakfast and post at the same time. So much for multi-tasking. :-)

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

An a few words from Ram Dass and the URL with complete essay.

"I was connected, maybe 20 years ago, with a Tibetan lama. In a response to this question about despair, he said, "One has to stand half-way between hope and hopelessness." If one is afraid of looking at the hopeless part, one is no longer free to act because one's anxiety about the outcome colors one's perception so deeply that one won't let oneself experience the gestalt out of which an appropriate response occurs.

Gandhi said, "What you do may seem insignificant, but it's very important that you do it." Edmund Burke said, "The worst mistake is to do nothing because you can only do a little."

http://island.org/ISLANDVIEWS/VIEWS4/bnwisland.html

Brave New World Or Island - The World Must Decide

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

marsh: One of the points that Quinn makes is that there is no one right way for everyone. Your fine post exemplifies this.

Donna: You were right to cross post Brian's thread. Thanks. I haven't looked at the Brave New World link yet - probably tomorrow.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@bfn.rob), October 18, 1999.

Hi Rob-Thanks for starting(and continuing)this thread and I've enjoyed your posts on the other forum too. I hear what you're saying about people and how they change but I wonder...if y2k is a 7 or more it sure seems like there will be large #'s of people scrambling to survive. Doesn't seem like a good setting for conscious social change(tho maybe I'm wrong about that). After the dust settles small groups could tend to organize themselves around more of a Leaver model. That so many in N. Amer are disconnected from producing and gathering their own food,fuel,shelter etc won't help the transition any. The odd thing about y2k is that if it is a nonevent that we'd likely have tons of people ridiculing all of us who are of a preparation,concerned about the future state of mind, And if it's really big,social chaos could trigger a dark ages style of barbarism at least temporarily. What we could really use here is enough of an event to get people to examine themselves,their lifestyles,it's future effects. Something that could not be easily manipulated by the media into the blame game. Possibly coupled with a significant earth change? Donna,wanted to thank you for the Huxley link-super! I really needed to read that. The quote from the monk was especially appropriate. I'd be interested in what others think of Spiritwalker and Medicinemaker. When I stated them I could hardly put them down. Medicinemaker seems to be a fascinayting collage -tapestry woven together by Wesselman. Glimpses into the future and awesome accounts of his journeys. His sobering account of global warming,as well as our apparent inability to recognize it,plan for it,take steps to change it have some striking parallels with y2k. What do you think? What can we take from his accounts that will help us move toward a leaver society or apply to Humpty-Dumpty-Howie

-- Howie (biggguy79@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

glad to see this thread continues! i have *got* to get quinn's sequels and spiritwalker.

as i continue to read this thread, i'm struck with the feeling that the leaver philosophy will only revive if y2k is a 8-10 *AND* the majority of survivors willingly accept the tenets. i don't know if that's feasible or not. given what (little) i know of human nature, i'd expect not.

someone above asked when humpty fell, or if he's landed, or whatever. in my view, he's still falling. the symptoms we're seeing today relate to the wind whistling past his ears on the way down. when he lands, we'll know it.

one of my favorite analogies (i wonder why) is of a cat that's fallen off a rooftop. can we get our feet under us in time to make a soft landing, given a=32 feet per second per second? how long does it take to twist our body around? how far away is the ground? when did we start? it doesn't look positive.

i'm very glad for this forum, because if things go 8-10, for a long time it's going to look like it was the lucky ones who died right away. the shorter we can make the dark ages this time the better off we'll be. i've been thinking in terms of keeping the knowledge alive, much as the monks of centuries ago. as this thread has pointed out, perhaps the higher priority is changing the direction of the world that follows.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

Howie: Certainly you are correct to point our that there is a correlation between Y2K impact and the potential for social change. Also, other non-Y2K-related substantial problems may act to exacerbate even a relatively moderate Y2K impact if they coincide within the same period. The greater the impact, the greater the potential for substantive change. You mention enough of an event to get people to examine themselves,their lifestyles,it's future effects and this leads me to think it would have to be a severe impact in order to have these effects. BTW, I havent read Medicinemaker yet. From what you have posted, and what Linda told me, it sounds like a cool read. So many books, so little time :)

Cowardly Lion: Have you ever read Lucifers Hammer? In it, one of the characters concerns himself with the very thing you just mentioned: preserving knowledge. It was recommended on the TB2000 forum since there are some tie-ins with Y2K and I thought it was an excellent book. You may want to check it out. BTW, stop by the TB2000 "OT - FRL #10" thread if you can!

-- (sonofdust@Rob.Michaels), October 21, 1999.

Rob

yes, very familiar with Lucifer's Hammer. the gentleman who recognizes the need to save the knowledge base ironically dies when they can't manufacture insulin for him. being mildly diabetic myself i can relate to his fate.

there is available out there a microfiche collection of appropriate technology texts. i tried to get my library to invest in the set, but it's very difficult to get across the need for old technology to dgi's. unfortunately i also don't have the $1k necessary to acquire a set, or i would in a heartbeat. que sera, sera.

here's to landing on our feet!

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

Cowardly Lion: Besides the microfiche, the actual book called The Way Things Work is real, and a sequel to it called The New Way Things Work is also available.

-- (sonofdust@waythings.work), October 22, 1999.

My son has a book entitled "The Way Things Work." I purchased it for him in 5th grade. It has a whooly mammoth for a narrator. It is an excellent lay-persons guide to physics and engineering, though. Is this the same book?

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), October 22, 1999.

marsh: Here is more info (all from amazon.com) about the two books:

The Way Things Work. Hardcover (December 1973) Simon & Schuster; ISBN: 0671652125 And here is part of a review that I snipped: The Way Things Work by David MacAulay is an encyclopedia of technology hidden in a children's book. The illustrations are designed to encapsulate each description for children, but the text is fashioned in such a way that both the child and the adult can glean differing levels of understanding from it.

Sounds like it could be what you have. If it is, you are fortunate, as it evidently is no longer available from the publisher. The sequesl is The New Way Things Work by David Macaulay, Neil Ardley (Contributor) / Hardcover / Published 1998

Hope this helps, Rob.

-- (sonofdust@Rob.Michaels), October 22, 1999.

marsh,

Yes, it's the same book.

-- flora (***@__._), October 24, 1999.

Back again to chew on "how to begin". Rob, I agree with you that Mother Culture continues to do a very thorough teaching on a daily basis that "all is well except for THIS little problem over here, and THAT little problem over there. Fear not, little ones. Just buy one more trinket to ease any niggling anxiety you might have in the back of your mind." This is one large part of the crisis of perception.

My job then, or one of my jobs is to keep pointing out the discrepancies between what Mother Culture describes, and what is actual. :-) One of those insignificant things Mr. Gandhi tells me I must do. Then, what remains is to keep on doing the other things I do every day to make my corner of the world 'something better'....

What does this make me? Part towncrier, part hunkerdowner,...eccentric earthwoman by status quo standards, but who I am.

Morning thoughts on 'something better.'

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 25, 1999.

-from the notebook entitled: "The trials of a used bookstore junkie"

I stopped by The Book Baron today, this absolutely loaded and fabulous used book store in my town. Browsed where I thought I could find "my own" copies of the Ish books, and Story of B. No luck. On my way out, one of the owners checked to see if I needed help, and really I had an inkling these books would not be easily traded or discarded,...he said: "oh...Quinn? Nope. We don't get those in."

I was disappointed but not surprised. I'll search a couple more before buying new. (my first favorite haunt is the public library, who shock of shocks does not own a copy of "My Ishmael".

--She in the sheet, A.K.A., Book Woman,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 27, 1999.

I've been looking for used copies of Quinn's books for a long time and until recently absolutely zip. Finally got a copy of the Story of B in a used bookstore in Arcata. I asked the owner and she said she often had lots of Quinn in and out cause alot of the college kids have to read them for classes. Here's a website for used books: www.addall.com I have not tried them yet for this-keep thinking I'll find one in person or at a yard sale. If these books are so popular and nobody seems to ever get rid of their copies how come I can't seem to run into anyone who wants to discuss them? Sigh. Howie

-- Howie (biggguy79@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

Howie,

Besides the Ishmael.com website, there is another Quinn discussion group on Delphi (as well as related philosophical fora).

http://www0.delphi.com/ishmael/

There used to be an interesting E-mail discussion group, but they've sort of burned out. Lots of Ish-related material out there if your search engine is capable.

Hallyx

"You can never do just one thing." ---Ishmael

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), October 28, 1999.