The Campaign Builder's Guild

Since the name has popped up a few times in various threads, I figured I'd start a thread discussing the works and ideas of a Mr. Daniel Quinn. For those of you who aren't familiar with this author, he found fame by writing a fictional dialogue between a cynical former hippy, and a telepathic gorilla. This gorilla (named Ishmael, and is the title character of Quinn's first book) represented an "outsider's perspective" of human culture and civilization.

Ishmael believed that there are two key types of human societies, which he dubbed the Takers and the Leavers (the reason for these names is a bit legnthy for this ost; I advise those not familiar with the books to pick up Ishamel).


For those of you who have read any of the books, feel free to use this thread for any Quinn-related discussions (pollution, ranching, extinntion, thoughts on the books, expanding the ideas presented, etc.). The rest of you can feel free to join in on the discussions, as well. With any luck, this thread will develop enough to present at least a few of the key ideas adequitely.

*bump*


Since nobody else is talking here, I'm going to throw out an idea that I find quite curious: the Vegan Leaver. (That's fun to say out loud, by the way)

I was talking with somebody on another site, and this idea subtley worked it's way into the discussion. According to this guy, veganism would still be sustainable in a leaver society. Personally, I disagree. While humans-- as omnivores with limited predation-- are ecologically safe, we'd still run into the occassional famine or two in a leaver society. When we willingly limit our foodsource, we'd be considerably more prone to this ("food, food, everywhere, but I don't eat anything from animals").

What does everybody else think about this? Is the Vegan Leaver a sustainable concept?

QuoteWhat does everybody else think about this? Is the Vegan Leaver a sustainable concept?

easier[/i] to sustain. (I'm ignoring the "leaver" part of the question, cuz i don't know what it means.)

Takers and Leavers at their most basic definitions (thank you Wikipedia):
- "Takers" as people often referred to as "civilized." Particularly, the culture born in an Agricultural Revolution that began about 10,000 years ago in the Near East; our culture
- "Leavers" as people of all other cultures; sometimes referred to as "primitive."

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread the first time. I love to banter about this.

I personally agree with most of Mr. Quinn's claims. IMO: The glut of produce and the current mentality of many sub-cultures is responsible for the population boom. It's animal instinct: the more food available, the more an animal reproduces. At least until an outside influence brings its population back in check.  I realize I'm comparing some sub-cultures to animals, but reproduction is a species imperative. And it takes a high level of societal advancement and standard of living before an individual can really begin to think for themselves and choose their fate.

Take a look at the first world countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_world), and the map of population growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth) and you'll see a lot of similarities. The higher the standard of living, the more "control" the individual has, and the less they feel the need to breed.

The problem (as I see it) is food, supply, standard of living, and education. But I don't know how to solve any of them.

I could keep going, but I feel I should hand the soapbox over to someone else.

HUGE BUMP!

I'm currently talking to a friend about roadkill being a symptom of human (specifically, Taker) arrogance. The idea that roads are forceful intrusions into "wilderness", to me, has never been a novel concept. Honestly, I can't see any reason why our roads would be any more important then animals' homes, other then the fact that the roads are, well, ours. In that light, roadkill isn't so much animals coming onto our roads and being killed, but us going into their homes and killing them.

My friend's only rebuttal to that line of thinking as that there's plenty of arrogance in the development of "any modern country". I compared that to using Hitler to justify Bundy, but then quickly called the debate off before it got too heated.

I had no idea this thread existed.  I'm going to sit this one out because Ishmael is my most hated book and when asked about it I usually rant about how terrible it is.  I think it's some kind of antagonistic obsession or something.  I don't want to impose that on you, though.  :)

edit: seriously, I start foaming at the mouth, it's bad and nobody wins

QuoteI compared that to using Hitler

By Godwin's Law, you lose. :P

Quote from: sparkletwist

QuoteI compared that to using Hitler

Seconded!

I forgot about this thread too...

[spoiler=off-topic rant]

Quote from: sparkletwist

QuoteI compared that to using Hitler

Not knowing what that is, I just did some quick research on it, and I hope you're joking. Although this example did use Hitler in a comparison, I wasn't using him in a manner of guilt by association. I'm not stating that dwarves are evil because facial hair is a distinctive feature for them ("Just like Hitler!"). My comparison was simply to point out that a greater evil does not stop a lesser evil from actually being an evil.

Although I will admit that the use of Hitler in the comparison was, to a degree, for an emotional effect, I feel it was still an appropriate comparison, which would have stood with any pairing of a greater and lesser evil.


Either way, the issue of Hitler vs. Godwin's Law is irrelevant, both to the topic of this thread, and--since the one who originally made the comparison also immediately ended the debate, to avoid flared emotions-- the conversation in which the comparison was made.[/spoiler]

Now, I'd hope that, as a friendly community, we can either agree, or agree to disagree, and in doing so, rise above the thread derailing that usually is involved in these issues ;)