While discussing the ideas in your books, some people have said that, yes, if our culture continues without change, there will be a cataclysmic event. But, they argue, there is no way to kill our entire species, as we’re the most adaptive and intelligent one on the planet. I’m finding it hard to point to conclusive evidence otherwise, and I find the notion entirely possible. Hmm, there’s a question in here somewhere. . . .

I suppose that if the impending Taker-wrought ecological disaster doesn’t wipe out our species, it’d be almost a given that the survivors would be logically forced to dump the Taker lifestyle, as they’ve not only seen but experienced what it invariably leads to, right?

Do you believe that the product of “saving souls” was necessary for the enslavement of indigenous people (and looting of the land) for the goal of Western Civilization expansion? Does this question make sense?

When in the course of human history did it become important to “save the souls” of humans? Savings souls seems like a way of using a future fear to control masses of people in the present.

Near the conclusion of Ishmael, you proclaimed that humans in the Taker culture have stopped evolving, because they do not live in the hands of the gods. This is the only idea of yours that I cannot wrap my mind around.

I don’t understand how or why evolution would cease for a segment of one species but not for another segment of the same species…especially considering the segment for which evolution supposedly has ceased contains the vast majority of the total species’ population.

In addition, how have the Leaver peoples evolved, and what proof do we have of that evolution?

The interpretation of the story about Cain and Abel and the story of creation was shocking to me. I do not doubt it is very logical as it manifests the antagonism between Takers and Leavers.

But then, it makes me wonder if there is a proof that Hebrews adopted the story of creation from their ancestors and that it actually originated among Semites. Maybe the fact that biblical story explains things so well is a coincidence.

I am very curious to find out more about it. I looked into historical atlases but it was hard to find the map similar to that which is in Ishmael.

I hope it is not the comment of a complete ignorant, but I am surprised that I have not heard this meaning of biblical stories before especially since it sounds so obvious when you hear it.

After reading My Ishmael, it has come to mind that there are a few questions about things that don’t make sense. In the history of our culture, we were told by Daniel that the ones deemed as the managers of the food decided to lock the food up. In this decision, they have abandoned the law that states that a tribe will do what is best for the tribe.

What has made them do such a thing when this law has been tried, tested, and true for millions of years? Would they not realize their error and the detrimental effects this is causing the tribe?

As well, after locking up the food, wouldn’t the tribe come together as a whole to extinguish these efforts for the good of the tribe? Those who would be hired as guards would obviously be only part of the community that they would need to convince that this is a good way to work things.

How could they convince a whole tribe, albeit a large tribe, that locking up their food is a wonderful idea without any resistance or tribal community?