I can’t agree with your reply #757, where you say that Totalitarian Agriculture produces food the same way as any other form of agriculture.

Reading about different types of cultivation, I see that agriculture is a way of cultivating by catastrophe, where people till the soil to emulate the effects of a flood (and this method doesn’t tolerate diversity on the landscape) while permaculture/horticulture is cultivation by participating in ecological succession and aiding in building up the soil and fostering diversity in the landscape.

A population that is overrepresented beyond sustainability will feel some sort of backlash (I think this is called the revenge effect). Is the human species collectively able to make the choice to stop an overall population increase before there is a revenge effect?

If we were to suppose that all humans were capable of this trait, we would also be acknowledging something that (to my knowledge) has not happened in our evolution; an entire species choosing not to further increase their representation in the gene pool for a long term view of survival.

This has been a consistent road block for me.

Were you influenced by any of the works of C.S. Lewis? Particularly I’m referencing “The Great Sin” excerpted from his Mere Christianity.

In this, Lewis goes in depth on how in the Bible it is pride which is Man’s greatest sin. He cites how in the Bible Satan tempted Man to seek independence, and from this “human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, slavery, etc.,” resulted.

He even uses an analogy similar to your pilot analogy (the man in free fall) where he cites a machine that “seems to start up alright and runs a few yards” only to fail because it is not being run on the proper fuel.

The similarities are there, even if you weren’t at all influenced, I wanted to thank you for perhaps opening my eyes to some truth.

In response to question #538, you stated that you are not agnostic because you are not stating that you don’t KNOW if God exists, but that the knowledge is unobtainable. I find this difficult to follow.

If the knowledge is unobtainable (which is what I know) then does that not imply that you don’t know if God exists (I don’t)?

The reason I don’t know God exists is BECAUSE the knowledge is unobtainable, and that, from what I’ve been taught, makes me agnostic. Please help me with this!

On more than one occasion in your books and in your responses to questions you categorically reject the idea of gods, in particular the Abrahamic god. Yet in The Holy Tim, after being prompted by Pablo who “sees” this all the time, finally sees the glory the cactus has to offer him.

Therefore I have two questions. If you do not believe that there is a God or gods in this world, then what or who is Pablo (whom you saw yourself as a young child)? Second, both in The Story of B and in The Holy, you position the Abrahamic god as an opponent of the very world he allegedly created.

Why do you believe that a Satan/Ba’al zebub or an antichrist figure would be so much more in tune with your world vision?

I am now fighting two distinct battles. One against the idea that people are supposed to rule the world, and the other against the notion that governments are supposed to rule people.

Frankly, I’m surprised you’re not an anarchist. You’ve indicated that the “laws” that governments write are inferior to those that grow and evolve with cultures. But, in the answers to questions 502 and 592, you seem to concede the inborn right of you and your tribe to govern yourselves—to ignore old minds that are merely elected, and often critically opposed to your ideas.

You contend that the problems of our culture developed systemically, yet you feed a failed, corrupt system (the U.S. government) with your vote. I find it difficult to believe that you can see the potential of walking away from civilization without ceasing the opportunity to walk away from corruption. Al Gore is a great alternative to George Bush for president, just as a clean knife is better that a rusty one for impaling oneself.