Though I certainly enjoyed After Dachau, The Man Who Grew Young, and The Holy, I miss reading new insights from you every once in a while about saving the world. Your last book directly addressing that subject, Beyond Civilization, was published about five years ago.

The most recent of your speeches posted to this site is from about 2 1/2 years ago. Do you think you will have anything new to say about saving the world in the future, either in a book or shorter format?

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?

If you have been watching the news recently, you must have seen something about how a company called Clonaid has claimed to have cloned the first human baby.

Clonaid is also in a way, a branch of a new religion movement called Raelian that believes man was made a long time ago by aliens who genetically created us in labs. I guess this belief isn’t that much different from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief, neither can accept that we evolved from “common slime.” The leader said that their long term goal is to use cloning to give humans eternal life.

What is your opinion on this subject? Do you think these people will ever achieve their goal? Do you think they will be allowed to? If they do, what do you think the effects on this world will be?

In your response to question 579 you said that closed-minded individuals would most likely change their views as social conditions change because they will feel compelled to “fit in.” However, what if there is a greater motivation to remain a Taker?

Take, for instance, one of the largest groups of Takers, Christians. Christians are compelled to remain Christian and to convert others by the belief that all non-Christians will go to hell. Even further motivation comes from the belief in an imminent doomsday. Also, at a book signing I attended in Atlanta, you said that Christians feel as though they do not belong to this world, and that it is merely a way-station until they can reach heaven.

Taking into consideration all of these factors, why would any practicing Christian feel compelled to give up their belief in Christianity (thus relinquishing the chance to have life in a place they feel they belong to) just so that they can fit in with a world that they themselves don’t even feel they fit in with in the first place? Especially if they think the end is always near.

I am a high school English teacher currently reading Ishmael with my 10th graders. We were discussing Ishmael’s idea that man is the only animal that breaks the law of limited competition—kills off other animals’ food sources or other organisms that are not his specific food source—in order to keep his food source plentiful.

One of my bright students shared a video that he had seen in a science class. The video is called The Evolutionary Arms Race (aired on PBS, WGBH 2001) and the part he shared was the practice of the tropical leaf cutter ant.

These ants cut leaves and carry them to their nests to feed them to a fungus which the ants in turn eat. In the process of feeding and caring for the fungus, ants seemed to develop a sort of white sticky film on their bodies.

It was discovered that the fungus has a predator—a mold. This white sticky film is a bacteria secreted by the ants that kills the mold. So the ant secretes an organic pesticide to get rid of a weed it doesn’t want growing in its garden.

In your opinion, would these ants be breaking the law of limited competition?

I find it difficult to teach the “unteachable,” or better yet, to “unteach” them. Please, don’t get me wrong here—I am not suggesting that they are intellectually inept but rather that they are unwilling to listen to anything that goes against their conditioning.

Do you think that this fact(?) will seal our fate?

I only ask because I find that the types of individuals who are drawn to books such as yours are the ones looking for an alternative in the first place. I find that most people I talk to either don’t want to be challenged or truly believe in this “lifestyle” because they don’t know any better.

I am sorry if this question sounds redundant as I have read your views on this but what is your approach for the most “closed-minded” individuals, or isn’t there one?

I was surprised to see your answer to Question 502, that you consider a vote for Nader to be throwing a vote away. It seems like that would be inconsistent with your arguments that a short term focus in government is a bad thing and that changed minds have to spread slowly one person at a time.

I consider your works to be the authoritative guides on finding a better way to live, so please know I don’t mean this adversarially. But I was just curious if you would be inclined to reconsider this stance?

While I do not mean to overstate the endorsement of Darwin’s theory of evolution in your essay “Our Religions: Are They the Religions of Humanity Itself?” I have a related question. I believe that I understand you correctly to only be specifically advocating Darwin’s theory as the most sort of ‘comprehensive’ theory in light of the evidence available, and in terms of its provision of a sort of workable model to explain an apparent question of somewhat comparable significance to the primary question of your essay regarding the processes relating to the placement of the beginning of humanity at the beginning of the agricultural revolution.

I would say that I quite agree with your estimations of the merits of Darwin’s theory, and again I hope that I am not too presumptuous in assuming some greater acceptance in the processes of evolution that he describes.

Ultimately my question is whether or not you would describe the sort of ‘religious’ processes you describe in your essay, or the sort of ‘assault’ on animism as a similarly uncontrollable or irreversible process.