Note: Beware of a website proclaiming to be New Tribal Ventures/An Ishmael Community! Do not reply to any request for information. Our legitimate pages are available on our site here & on the navigation to the left.
HOME

DQ on Facebook!Follow Us on
 Facebook!


FIND OUT ABOUT
What's new
Daniel Quinn
Daniel Quinn's books
Schools & courses
Telephone Conferences
This website
New Tribal Ventures
Ishmael's Annex
Speaking Invitations
Events

THINGS TO DO
Register
Visit Guestbook
Find others
Help us
Order books
Contact us
Telephone Conferences
Special Requests

THINGS TO READ
Essays
Speeches
Dialogues
Parables
Answers to Questions
DQ's suggested reading
DQ's Blog

FOR TEACHERS
The Ishmael Companion
Beyond Civilization
 Study Guide


  The Ishmael Community: Questions and Answers

The Question (ID Number 135)...

    My understanding is that anything we humans do that disturbs the balance of Nature must be discarded from our way of life. We do not have to give up agriculture just the type that promotes the killing of other creatures, that pollutes the environment, and that produces more than we need. We do not have to give up technology completely just technology that is not in accord with Nature's Constructive Principle.

    ...and the response:

    The "balance of nature" (using quote marks to
    indicate that this is your concept, not mine) is
    FOREVER being disturbed. It became disturbed
    when mammals appeared. It became disturbed
    when primates appeared. It became disturbed
    when humans appeared. Disturbance of the
    "balance of nature" is the driving force of
    evolution. It is what makes evolution occur. We
    wouldn't be here (indeed life itself wouldn't be
    here) if the "balance of nature" had remained
    undisturbed. SO---adopting the nondisturbance of
    the "balance of nature" as a policy makes no
    sense to me. Or to put it another way, anyone
    who thinks I'm saying that we must not disturb
    the "balance of nature" is simply mistaken.

    Your understanding of what I'm saying about agriculture is, I think, a bit
    closer to the mark. (Though I'm not sure what you mean by agriculture that
    "promotes the killing of other creatures." If you mean "promotes the
    extinction of other creatures," then I'd agree. But if you mean "uses other
    creatures as food," then I wouldn't agree. There is nothing BUT other
    creatures to use as food; the entire biological community is an economy of
    food.)

    I've nowhere said that we have to give up technology that is "not in accord
    with Nature's Constructive Principle." I have no idea what Nature's
    Constructive Principle might be. The fact is, I try to discourage people from
    thinking in ANY terms of "giving up" things. Nothing less than a new vision
    is going to save us, and vision is NEVER about "giving up" things.


Go Back OR return to the Questions & Answers OR Browse to the Next Question
Site design and content, © 2018, Daniel Quinn