I can recall sitting in gov’t. class and my teacher, a well-known-so-called Democrat, whatever that is, told “his” students, “If you don’t vote, then you don’t have a right to complain.” I didn’t raise my hand and explain why I strongly disagreed with what he just said. Instead I just sat there thinking he is “full of it.”

I don’t vote because casting a vote for any of these candidates is a vote for failure. The politicians that are elected still have in there heads “people are kings of the world and supposed to be kings of the world.” If you listen hard enough, you can hear them say we are the world. And if you look at them hard enough, that is what they are representing.

No one asks these people what the true world means to them or what is our niche, our contribution, along with the rest of the community. If anyone has a right to complain, it’s the nonvoter. What do you think?

You ask a capitalist how he expects to survive without biodiversity, and he calls you a tree hugging communist. Defending yourself against the abuse of a vegan, you point out that you believe you have as much right to eat meat as a lion does to eat a gazelle, and he calls you a capitalist pig.

I think, that amidst the war and turmoil of the world at the moment, people are being whipped up into a frenzy of irrationality. It seems to me, that as the water around the frog is reaching boiling point, people are pedaling away at the taker mobile with a renewed, and alarmingly frantic urgency.

With extremist voices being heard the loudest in a time of war, I find myself desperately hoping for a period of calm, in which your message can be heard clearly, without being bludgeoned into submission by fear and the blind pursuit of reckless, idiotic leaders like Bush, Howard, etc.

What do you think? How can the turmoil of the world show people the inherent flaws in the taker lifestyle, rather than make them pursue it with an increased urgency?

I was watching the tellie (television) the other day, and one of those “The Truth” anti-tobacco commercials came on. While watching it, I got the idea that we should write and produce a bunch of commercials that tell people the truth about our planet, our culture, and our possible future.

T.V. reaches millions of people (as opposed to the 30 people privy to the speeches I give in my philosophy classes), and if the commercials were demographically targeted for maximum effectiveness, it may be able to help get the message out faster than any way we’ve tried thus far. I was wondering what you thought of this idea, and also if you knew of any people in this little community of ours that has the means (read: cash) to help make it a logistical possibility.

I have read several of your books and love how you draw from so many disciplines of academia. Is there any particular graduate program in the world that can be called a degree and provides skills for a job that is so inter-disciplinary that it covers many of the subjects you’ve drawn upon for your knowledge of the world?

This curriculum doesn’t have to teach Daniel Quinn or how to be him, just teach the facts and teach the philosophies that make our world interesting. I want to learn about the world, not just the earth’s geology, but its history, and then all the social sciences around its reality.

Assuming there is no perfect program, can you suggest one that comes close, or a subject that might suit my passions. I am considering sociology (anthropology), social work, history, religion (can you study religion from a sociological/historical perspective, and not spiritually?), and maybe international affairs-economic development.

All of these seem so much like conformity, getting by or making the best of the current world we live in. I want do it right, it may be my only chance.

You speak of programs very often as being only reactionary, but it seems that some can lead to new directions; especially if they are tribal. For example, Food Not Bombs is a program that is leading to a world free of totalitarian agriculture.

I saw you write that free food is not the place to start. However, with programs such as this I think it can be a place to start. Do you encourage tribal programs in this nature?

Though I agree with you that young children don’t need books written for them that do what your other books do for adults, I also am not convinced by this assertion from Q&A #560 “If the parents have new minds, then their children will too—automatically.”

Based on my own experience (and I bet my parents would agree), observation of the experiences of others, and reading, I think you’ve seriously overestimated the degree to which parental influence determines the kind of adult a child becomes.

It seems to me that children are evolved to socialize primarily to the larger culture they are part of rather than to their own parents. Consequently, I worry for my friends who are attempting to raise children free of Taker cultural mythology and values while still immersed in Taker culture.

Would you give us more insight into why you feel parents with new minds will automatically produce children with new minds.

In a recent Q&A you stated “. . . the author of any literary work doesn’t begin with an idea and then set out to fabricate a story to convey it. Rather, it’s very much the other way around.” I wonder if you might expound on this a bit because it was my understanding that Ishmael was a story fabricated specifically to convey certain ideas. Am I wrong?

Go to Top