THE "LAW" OF LIFE:

I've a question: is "limited competition" different from "cooperation"? Why "limited competition" rather that "cooperation"? Seems to me that "limited competition" seeks merely to minimize a negative while "cooperation" would ENCOURAGE a positive. Is it not better to encourage a positive rather than merely to limit a negative or is encouraging a positive simply too much of a leap for competitive lifestyle to make at this point (one step at a time)?

Anyway, what I see as the REAL "Law" of Life is not so much the "law of limited competition" (chapter 8) as the "law" ("principle" might be a better term) that "we should take only what we need and leave the rest alone." Indeed, toward the end of the book this is stated outright (chapter 11.4, p. 222). "Takers" take more than they need. Takers are motivated by WANT, not just by NEED. "Leavers" leave the rest alone. This is why it is indeed most appropriate to call them "Takers" and "Leavers" respectively. One problem I see with this, though, is that it's not so simple to identify the difference between "needs" and "wants". Sometimes we THINK we need something when we do not. Sometimes we need something and don't even realize we need it or know what it is we need. The difference between "needs" and "wants" is relative to one's entire value system (do you really NEED that 4 bedroom house when more than one person can sleep in a room? that 27 inch TV when a 13 inch will do or you can read a book? that shinny new luxury car when that rusty pickup will get you to work?).

Essentially, the problem is Takers are egoistic, selfish. They want everything for themselves, always getting "bigger and better". They are hoarders (although hoarding is not bad in itself, many animals are hoarders). What Takers are is FEARFUL of the risk of NOT hoarding what they consider to be enough to see them through an extended period of time (e.g., through drought or flood, etc.). The problem is humans are farsighted but apparently not farsighted enough. Creatures who are not nearly as farsighted as humans don't "worry for tomorrow". Interestingly, the solution to this problem is not necessarily being LESS farsighted. The solution can be found in being even MORE farsighted than we are - to realize the ultimate ramifications of what we are doing. Either extreme would be a step to solving the problem. For the sake of our own survival we will take even the life of others. This is not very farsighted for the life of others supports our own life in the long run if not immediately. We tend to be concerned about relatively short-term interests and ignore long-term effects of our short-term actions.

We tend to go with short-term solutions, the "quick-fix". We can see this tendency in our governmental solutions to various social problems. The "quick-fix" tends to placate specific interest groups but is NOT the REAL solution. The real solution to many problems, be they social or global, will hurt at first. We have to be willing to take the risk, to make the leap, if we REALLY want to solve a problem. But, to get back to Ishmael...

WHAT ELSE DO TAKERS DO?:

The discussion in chapter 8.1 asks "what do Takers do that Leavers do not do?" One thing Takers do, which was not even hinted at anywhere in the book, is that we make DRASTIC modifications to what nature gives us. That, in my observation, is the main difference between "civilized" and "non-civilized". Again, this falls under the heading of "taking more than we need". We can build housing out of raw materials like termites and beavers and "primitive" peoples do. We don't NEED all the technology we use to create lumber and bricks and concrete and steel which do not as easily return to the earth when we are finished with them. We can eat the raw food which nature offers without the high production we go through to process and package it.

WHAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS:

I'm not so sure the problem, as outlined in Ishmael, actually has its roots in the 10,000 year old agricultural revolution as it does in the several hundred year old INDUSTRIAL/TECHNOLOGICAL revolution. I feel that the REAL culprit behind these problems which Ishmael is concerned with is modern technology and industry. Any look at the bell curve of population growth and damage to our environment will show that it is only in the last couple of hundred years that the damage is exploding exponentially. This is a sign of the problem and it coincides with the industrial revolution, NOT with the agricultural revolution and NOT with the development of "civilized" religions. This all relates back to my previous comments regarding the problem being a matter of "want vs. need". Agriculture feeds our needs - it is OK. It is technology which feeds our "wants" and that is where we go too far.

We might be able to argue that the urbanization made possible by the agricultural revolution enabled the younger industrial/technological revolution to be born and our urbanized religion both grew out of as well as contributed to the mind set which encouraged human civilization to continue in this fashion. But agriculture and religion did not cause the problems nor are they directly responsible for them. It's even likely that modern technology has caused agriculture and religion to become part of the problem when they are not inherently problematic. I don't think it fair to BLAME agriculture and religion for the problems caused by industry and technology just because agriculture and religion contribute to industry and technology.

NEED TO REDEFINE "GROWTH":

The discussion about population growth in chapter 8.5 suggests that Takers are over concerned about "growth" as defined as increasing and maintaining numbers of people at all cost to anything other than people. This is, of course, egoistic human centrism which holds that humans are better than everything else. This is the premise which the entire book is challenging. I would suggest that a solution to the problem this concern for growth causes would be NOT to eliminate this concern but to REDEFINE what "growth" means. "Growth" does NOT have to be a matter of quantity (numbers); it can be a matter of QUALITY. I think this understanding of "growth" might just make us rethink our entire value system and change our style of living (of course, we'd have to determine which quality is best). One specific result of this thinking would redirect such pursuits as medicine. We would not be so concerned with quantity of life (i.e., NUMBER of years - extending life) at all cost including quality. We would be more comfortable with letting people die when it is their time to go (letting the "gods" decide who will live and die and when rather than having the doctors "play god", trying to control this ourselves).

SEPARATISM?:

(I'm going to be a bit critical here but please bare with me, read through what I have to say in this section before writing me off.)

The discussion in chapter 8.7 suggests that various peoples/cultures should leave each other alone. Essentially, "live and let live". This sounds all well and good but I have a little problem with this concept. It is, essentially, "separatism". I feel that a mixing and mingling, a sharing between cultures creating one HUGE culture, is actually very ENRICHING to every individual in that culture. The problem, as it stands now, when cultures encounter each other is that they are in competition with each other rather than in cooperation. They see each other as a threat rather than as an opportunity to expand their horizons by exposure to and learning from each other. I work in the field of religion and see this competition as a major problem in our "global village", multicultural society where interaction between faiths is unavoidable.

A comment at the end of chapter 10 also suggests that separatism is the way to go: "Leavers accumulate knowledge about what works well for people. But not for ALL people. Each Leaver people has [its own] system..." Essentially, this is to say that different groups of people are different, separate from other groups. The problem that Taker lifestyle has wrought in the world is that they have PRESUMED that THEIR system of living is best for all people. Again - egoism. Again, this sounds like a reasonable criticism but there's something about this criticism that bothers me. The Leaver view of "what works best for us" is based on an "us" and "them" mentality. True, it's a mentality which enables people to leave each other alone but this is merely a toleration or even ignorance or how others live. What it says is that "there is nothing we can learn from them, they have nothing to do with us". Again, I see this as a mentality in the field of religion and I think it is not healthy.

The tendency among takers which has led them to take over the world, thinking their lifestyle is THE ONE BEST WAY, is the tendency to think in BIGGER terms than the Leavers think - the tendency to identify universals. While the direction this tendency has taken us is not good, I think the tendency itself can have GREAT benefits. Takers see all human culture as ONE culture and seeks to identify universal "laws" which are common to ALL people, not just a specific people. Takers have their sights set on what UNITES all humans as a SINGLE race. Takers seek a LARGER understanding of who/what humans are beyond parochialism and cultural relativism. I will grant that Takers seem to have failed in identifying the true universals, presuming to think they know when they do not know, imagining that Taker values are universal for all people. But I don't think the solution to the problem laid out in Ishmael is to adopt the attitudes of Leaver peoples. Leaver attitudes in this regard may have caused less problems but I don't think these Leaver attitudes will help to advance human evolution (which Ishmael is NOT against - see chapter 12.4).

I'm concerned about unity, not separation. But this would be a unity which brings ALL cultures TOGETHER AS one, not a unity where ONE culture (or creature) TAKES OVER and eliminates all others. Unity is important because it is what binds us together as one. Of course, ultimately, this unity would be understood to include ALL life, not just all human life. This is, for me, a SPIRITUAL unity, a unity which sees not just Taker people as gods but sees ALL LIFE as God. Recognizing this unity naturally results in realizing that all are interconnected, interrelated, NOT separate and independent of each other. The world, the universe, does NOT advance if the various members of the world/universe do not cooperate, interact with and learn from each other, pooling their resources and knowledge. This is very different than the current situation where one part of life ("Takers") think that only THIER knowledge and lifestyle is superior to all others and THE universal guideline for how all life should be run.

WE ARE ALL GOD!:

The criticism in chapter nine was that Takers think they are gods when they are not. This is also problematic for me, given my own philosophy, for I think we (all life in the universe, even the universe itself) ARE indeed God. Pantheism, yes. And pantheism seems to be a general tendency of belief among Leavers and among spiritual environmentalists. But let me share my version of this and how I see it not as antithetical to Ishmael but as an ally to what Ishmael is saying:

My saying "we are god" does NOT allow us to say "we can rule over them" (which is the Taker version of this belief and an "us" and "them" mentality). My belief says we ALL (everything in the universe) is God, a part of God like cells in a body. Thus all must cooperate [in "limited competition" if you must] or the whole (God) will die. This is what I was talking about above regarding unity and against separatism: we all are one (there is no "us", no "them").

Ishmael wants us to recognize that "only the gods are gods". I suggest that either extreme belief ("only the gods are gods" OR "we all are God") will accomplish the same result of promoting life. The belief of Mother culture which says that one group of people is better than all the rest, is god over all the rest and can "lord it over" all else... that belief is dangerous. Saying "we all are god" eliminates the danger as well as saying "only the gods are god". But, I feel, that saying "we all are god" is more beneficial than saying "we are NOT god". Saying "we all are god" continues to acknowledge our awareness of self-determination and self-esteem which Taker culture will find most difficult to give up. Promoting "we ALL are god" will extend that self-esteem to all others as well as INSIST that all others be given the same level of respect as we give our self.

Indeed, as suggested at the end of chapter 11.4, the attraction of Taker lifestyle is the idea that we can be our OWN god, that we can determine our OWN destiny. Takers will resist any attempt to take this power away from them. What we CAN do is ADD to this idea: that OTHERS are ALSO god and that THEIR ability to determine THEIR own destiny must be equally respected. The notion that there is only ONE God is most important for this to succeed. For if we imagine that every creature is a DIFFERENT god then we can continue to allow unlimited competition between the gods just as we have unlimited competition between creatures now. Seeing all creatures as parts of ONE God, as a SINGLE organism, brings home the point that we must cooperate if we are all to survive.

MORE THAN MERE SURVIVAL:

And I think the issue is not just mere survival but thriving and growing (evolving). I think this point should also be made as it is even MORE attractive then mere survival. For some creatures to survive others must die. That was made clear in the book. But one will not shy away from death if one has had a full and thriving life. If one has really lived WELL then one will be READY to die when it is time. If one has grown and evolved, one will recognize that "there is a time to live and a time to die" and that one's own death will enable others to thrive. An evolved being will WANT others to thrive. And such an evolved being will also know that they can NEVER die, that their death gives life to others and even that the end of this life for them means the start of another with a whole new range of experiences from which they may continue to grow.

Thank you for listening.

I welcome and look forward to responses and a continuing discussion. I hope some of my thoughts here will be useful for further promoting "the cause" - perhaps some ideas as to how to implement the beginning of a solution.

LES - 1/3/97 Laura <74734.2556@compuserve.com>
Falls Church, VA USA - Sunday, January 05, 1997 at 17:56:27 (PST)