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.

DQ on Facebook!Follow Us on

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

Visit Guestbook
Find others
Help us
Order books
Contact us
Telephone Conferences
Special Requests

Answers to Questions
DQ's suggested reading
DQ's Blog

The Ishmael Companion
Beyond Civilization
 Study Guide

  The Ishmael Community: Questions and Answers

Questions and More Questions...

    Your request found 68 questions.
    The newest (or most recently updated) are displayed at the top. Just click on the question to see the answer.

    Previous 10 Questions · Next 10 Questions
  • The Question (ID Number 406): Do we never resort to battle? I mean, if the last two Ibex are standing in the last unplowed field and are about to be shot, and all attempts at mind change have failed; what do we do?

  • The Question (ID Number 402): While I understand the theory that vegetarianism tends to aggravate the population explosion, I find it morally reprehensible to consume the product of a cruel and unnatural factory farming system. My reasons for vegetarianism are not because I value a cow's life over a carrot's, and I know that both the meat and vegetable industries practice totalitarian agriculture. Both industries kill, but this is a "natural" way to get food. The problem, in my eyes, is that it is clear that cows are vastly mistreated during life, whereas carrots are not. My vegetarianism is a boycott of an industry that treats life as no more than capital. I want this industry to change. Are my morals unfounded in your opinion? Do you think vegetarianism is an ineffective way to bring about change in the meat industry? If so, what would be more effective, or what should I do instead?

  • The Question (ID Number 384): You answer your questions in a rather brisk and curt manner. I and a number of other readers have been curious why you seem to use such a harsh tone in answering questions. It may be just a personal mis-read of your mood. However, a few people have read your responses that way. Is there any reason why?

  • The Question (ID Number 379): Do you honestly feel that a time will come about when enough people have come to the realization that some sort of change in the way we're living has to be made?

  • The Question (ID Number 261): I think you’re being unduly pessimistic about our population future. How do you know that some new technological breakthrough isn’t going to come along to save us?

  • The Question (ID Number 181): In your reply you suggest that being a vegetarian is ethnocentric. Are you implying that cannablism is acceptable? About vegetarianism you say, "It suggests that creatures that resemble us are more precious than creatures that don't." You state that you can't subscribe to the idea that animal life has some sort of higher right to life than plant life. Are we humans animal life? Isn't taking a life, any life, wrong?

  • The Question (ID Number 178): I would be the first to agree that there is a great deal of glorious "primitive" art of the Leaver peoples, but what about the Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Verdi, Struass and Wagners of the world? Could they develop only in the Takers' world? In the Leavers world, would we never have any great music -- food for the soul? Would great music and the other great arts evolve anyway? Would it just take many more eons? Could an infinite number of monkeys really come up with all the Shakespeare plays? Is this animism's point of view? Is there any "purpose" of life in the animistic point of view? Are we here simply to preserve the natural state of the planet? Is there no purpose to evolution?

  • The Question (ID Number 171): You answer the questions about vegetarianism in strictly economic or agricultural terms. But vegetarianism can be a political stance as well--a desire on the part of people to NOT take from other species, to not use them, but in your words to "let all life forms continue to live and evolve." A broad way of defining vegetarianism is that it not only involves not eating animal products but not wearing animals, not using them for research, not exhibiting them unnaturally, etc. In other words, if one looks at your 3-part definition of the Taker mentality, vegetarianism seems to fly in the face of all three. Why then, if looked at from this perspective, can we not say that vegetarianism, in its respect for the equality of all life on the planet, isn't an example of the Leaver mentality? (I realize it isn't the ONLY re-visioning necessary because we can still treat the earth as though it belongs to us even if we are only eating plant life. I also realize that Leavers ate meat albeit in a different spirit.)

  • The Question (ID Number 159): I am amazed to find that you choose to use the industrial revolution as a model for building a new way of living. Why? Why do you find it necessary or useful to compare the changes we are seeking to the changes that occurred during the industrial revolution?

  • The Question (ID Number 134): I was disappointed that so little was addressed in Ishmael concerning the role of women in society (especially in discussion of Genesis and its role in Taker society)--your message could only be strengthened by a support of feminist ideas, why not give everyone something to consider on the subject?

    Previous 10 Questions · Next 10 Questions

    Back | Search Again

Site design and content © 2018, Daniel Quinn
Ishmael Privacy Policy