This might seem like a silly question, but I must attempt to have it answered anyway. When Mr. Quinn speaks of living tribally as helping people get “more of what [they] want (as opposed to just getting more)” (Beyond Civilization, p.115), is he simply referencing that tribal organizations FUNCTION to get people what they want (or need) whereas hierarchical organizations FUNCTION to benefit those in the upper echelon?

Or are there innate “needs” that can be fulfilled simply by BEING in a tribal social organization? (i.e., A tribal business can FUNCTION to give its members with children a free daycare service, but simply being IN a tribe fulfills needs of security, involvement, and “being a part of something” that all human beings seem to be attracted to.)

Mr. Quinn, held within every one of your books is a certain type of knowledge which I perceived to be almost “common sense” or complete earthly logic. But I fail to understand how everyday individuals are either shocked by your “revelations” or completely unfazed by them. It is as if everyone on the planet is living their lives without the guidance of any logical thought progression whatsoever.

So my question is, why do you think that so many individuals who play important roles in our society don’t seem to make the connection that one section of the planet is interconnected with all other sections? Why are questions like “Don’t you like to breath clean air?” “Yes.” “Then why do you drive an SUV?” answered with blank stares.

Is something turning our logical progressive brains off? I know its sort of a non-answerable question but I thought I would see what you would say in hopes of quelling my frustrations.

In your books, you seem to draw a very definite line between the structure between tribal life, and that of “civilized” people, but I’ve encountered many tribes, that even before their contact with the civilized world, have had things in common with civilized society.

As an example, the Potomac tribes had a vast stretch of land they controlled, had many branching tribes, and a complex system of trading, with their chieftain getting a cut of the action. There were tribes in the western parts of California and Washington that had slaves, people that did agricultural work, and kept them in seperate huts from the rest of the tribe.

There were tribes that Spanish conquerors came across in America that had vast storehouses (guarded storehouses) that contained pearls, and gold.

My question is, since these “tribes” don’t seem to fit under your qualifications for tribal life, are they still bona fide? Since they have been around for so long, and they seem to be working, are they in line with natural laws of conduct?

In one of the lectures in The Story of B, I think it may be the first of Shirin’s, you brought up the point about female circumcision in Islamicised tribal cultures.

I remember the question from the audience jolting me when I first read it, and B’s reaction to it more so (“abominable practice” seemed somewhat out of character), and was wondering if there was a particular reason for this—why it wasn’t left until after the lecture, or if you were prompted to put it in somehow.

It seems to me that half the problem with everything in this world stems from organized religion. People are so sure that when they leave this world all their sins will be forgiven, and because the world was made through a divine source we cannot really hurt it or any other species occupying it because God made it his way.

Therefore we cannot improve or impoverish the world. It almost invalidates life to think that afterwards we go to a perfect place where everything is perfect and that our lives were a test to see if we were ready for perfection.

It seems that this is the most perverse way of thinking I’ve ever heard. If I thought my life did not matter because I was heading to a perfect place and anything I did wrong would be forgiven as long as I confess, well I wouldn’t feel as guilty because it is all God’s design.

I think the biggest step in this revolution would be to change minds about this issue. Am I way off base or is there some truth to this?

I am troubled by your answer to question #637. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your intent, but as I read your answer you are denigrating the idea that “exploiting natural resources to human advantage” might be a good thing to do for the people that the Peace Corps volunteers are trying to help, that is people who live a marginal or even a sub-marginal existence.

Even keeping in mind that “development” can be, and generally has been, very destructive, your answer seems to exclude any consideration of the possibility of “sustainable development” as a workable and useful concept.

I did some research on a group of people that live in a remote mountain valley in Switzerland. They call their valley “Loetschental” and have been living there sufficiently and sustainably for about 1,250 years, and they still do.

This society performs a special form of agriculture that is not totalitarian, yet has been a sustainable kind. And this small civilization runs very differently from ours.

They raise three livestock animals—cattle, goats, and sheep (for wool, meat, and dairy) on the same pasture, hence no need to change the contents of the diversity of the pasture. Also, pasture is only around during the growing season—about 4 months a year—so hay grown there is used to feed the cattle the rest of the year, and food is stored for winter feeding.

They plant salad greens in gardens together, NOT on monocropped fields, and although they have single rye fields, they rotate their crops. Since the valley is about 7,000 feet above sea level, they have a very short growing season. Where they plant rye and hay one year they do not plant rye the next year.

They do not attempt to invade and conquer any neighboring villages, and do not try to make more of anything. They have a complete sense of limit. They grow the same amount every year—the amount needed to sustain their fixed population of 2,000—and no more.

Also, the wooden buildings in their valley never are torn down. The ones that exist now have existed since the dawn of the settlement. They also use no pesticides or hormones to raise productivity. They let Nature take its course to feed their livestock, and they feed whatever the pastures offer.

They may water their crops, but they do not try to control Nature—hence they “live in the hands of the gods” to a certain extent. They have made no attempts to hunt down the competitors or wage war on their animals. They may try to defend their livestock if attacked, but do not try to kill off the attackers.

They have no health problems or diseases of civilization, no depression, and have no hierarchical systems. Everyone shares the good times and the bad times together in the village. Yet they have all the good artifices of civilization—a culture, recorded history, an annual holiday celebration, and the ability to communicate ideas to the whole village. Would you call this a Leaver society?

I have a question about religion. In Mother Culture it appears that religion and the state have been tied up together since the dawn of civilization. Even though in the United States they claim there is a separation, it appears that many of the state (“state” as in government) laws appear to originate from our deeply held Christian belief system.

Religion’s place in Mother Culture mainly appears to inflict rules of behavior and conduct. My question is regarding indigenous tribal religion. I want to have a better understanding of the purpose religion serves in an indigenous tribal culture.

Are tribal laws and religion one and the same? Or does religion serve only to help them understand their spiritual place in the world? Or is it neither?

I recognize the fact that cultures are subject to a form of natural selection, in which unlivable practices are abandoned or changed by the members of a tribal society over time. However, what I do not understand is how one can look at a tribal society today and make assumptions about their past.

Members of a tribe may say, “We have done this since the beginning of time,” but the oral tradition changes along with everything else, and it isn’t really reliable.

In several answered questions, you have replied to a person’s inquiry about an unpleasant cultural practice with a response along the lines of, that culture has been proceeding for thousands of years, anything unsustainable to its people would have been eliminated by now.

But how can we know whether they will be eliminated in the future? If a practice is eliminated in a tribe, does that render our previous criticism of it “correct” from an evolutionary perspective? Destructive practices must exist for a short time before they are abandoned, so how can we tell if the last few hundred years out of thousands in a tribe’s history aren’t the most internally destructive, or a radical change from what enabled them to survive before?

I am writing to follow up from a response I received to question ID #657. I think I need to clarify my question, as I was labeled a “poser” in your response.

I am struggling with deciding whether or not to have children with my devout Catholic husband. If we do have children, he will find it as important to teach them the lessons of the bible as I will to teach them everything I know and believe through reading Ishmael, My Ishmael, The Story of B, Providence, etc.

I’m sure we will not be the first couple to raise children with opposing belief systems. I agree that the ideals of the Church are in direct conflict with animism, but does a child not take in everything he/she learns from parents, friends and the rest of their environment and form his/her own judgments and beliefs? For example, my parents are polar opposites in their personalities, but I’ve never felt I had to BECOME one or the other. Along the same lines, someone raised by two devout Catholics is not guaranteed to become one themself.

I have been “spreading the word” of Ishamel (as well as actually sending the book to many people). I do this because I feel it is important to the future of the earth and all creatures residing on it, including humans. I know two things for certain: a) that I will be spreading the word to my children, and b) that at the same time my husband will be taking them to church and teaching them about Jesus.

Surely you must be aware of others who are in relationships like mine and have been successful. If you do not, I can understand why you would have no guidance to offer me.

Go to Top