Daniel Quinn's Ishmael: looking at the past, present, and future of humanity

Is the current form of farming and agriculture the only way or even the best way to go out it? In terms of sheer productivity, certainly. But what are its downsides? If we turn almost all available land and resources into human food, does that cause the population to increase unchecked? Is that a good thing? Is it beyond control or too late to do anything about? Is it practical wisdom or greedy hubris to believe that all the world's resources undoubtedly belong to humans? Is a world consisting mainly of human food and fodder for human food ecologically stable?

Chapter Three

1.
“What’s that?” I said when I arrived the following morning. I was referring to an object resting on the arm of my chair.
“What does it look like?”
“A tape recorder.”
“That’s exactly what it is.”
“I mean, what’s it for?”
“It’s for recording for posterity the curious folktales of a doomed culture, which you are going to tell me.”
I laughed and sat down. “I’m afraid I haven’t as yet found any curious folktales to tell you.”
“My suggestion that you look for a creation myth bore no fruit?”
“We have no creation myth,” I said again. “Unless you’re talking about the one in Genesis.”
“Don’t be absurd. If an eighth-grade teacher invited you to explain how all this began, would you read the class the first chapter of Genesis?”
“Certainly not.”
“Then what account would you give them?”
“I could give them an account, but it certainly wouldn’t be a myth.”
“Naturally you wouldn’t consider it a myth. No creation story is a myth to the people who tell it. It’s just the story.”
“Okay, but the story I’m talking about is definitely not a myth. Parts of it are still in question, I suppose, and I suppose later research might make some revisions in it, but it’s certainly not a myth.”
“Turn on the tape recorder and begin. Then we’ll know.”
I gave him a reproachful look. “You mean you actually want me to … uh …”
“To tell the story, that’s right.”
“I can’t just reel it off. I need some time to get it together.”
“There’s plenty of time. It’s a ninety-minute tape.”
I sighed, turned on the recorder, and closed my eyes.”

2.
“It all started a long time ago, ten or fifteen billion years ago,” I began a few minutes later. “I’m not current on which theory is in the lead, the steady-state or the big-bang, but in either case the universe began a long time ago.”
At that point I opened my eyes and gave Ishmael a speculative look.
He gave me one back and said, “Is that it? Is that the story?”
“No, I was just checking.” I closed my eyes and began again. “And then, I don’t know—I guess about six or seven billion years ago—our own solar system was born…. I have a picture in my mind from some childhood encyclopedia of blobs being thrown out or blobs coalescing … and these were the planets. Which, over the next couple billion years, cooled and solidified…. Well, let’s see. Life appeared in the chemical broth of our ancient oceans about what—five billion years ago?”
“Three and a half or four.”
“Okay. Bacteria, microorganisms evolved into higher forms, more complex forms, which evolved into still more complex forms. Life gradually spread to the land. I don’t know … slimes at the edge of the oceans... amphibians. The amphibians moved inland, evolved into reptiles. The reptiles evolved into mammals. This was what? A billion years ago?”
“Only about a quarter of a billion years ago.”
“Okay. Anyway, the mammals … I don’t know. Small critters in small niches—under bushes, in the trees…. From the critters in the trees came the primates. Then, I don’t know—maybe ten or fifteen million years ago—one branch of the primates left the trees and …” I ran out of steam.
“This isn’t a test,” Ishmael said. “The broad outlines will do—just the story as it’s generally known, as it’s known by bus drivers and ranch hands and senators.”
“Okay,” I said, and closed my eyes again. “Okay. Well, onething led to another. Species followed species, and finally man appeared. That was what? Three million years ago?”
“Three seems pretty safe.”
“Okay.”
“Is that it?”
“That’s it in outline.”
“The story of creation as it’s told in your culture.”
“That’s right. To the best of our present knowledge.”
Ishmael nodded and told me to turn off the tape recorder. Then he sat back with a sigh that rumbled through the glass like a distant volcano, folded his hands over his central paunch, and gave me a long, inscrutable look. “And you, an intelligent and moderately well-educated person, would have me believe that this isn’t a myth.”
“What’s mythical about it?”
“I didn’t say there was anything mythical about it. I said it was a myth.”
I think I laughed nervously. “Maybe I don’t know what you mean by a myth.”
“I don’t mean anything you don’t mean. I’m using the word in the ordinary sense.”
“Then it’s not a myth.”
“Certainly it’s a myth. Listen to it.” Ishmael told me to rewind the tape and play it back.
After listening to it, I sat there looking thoughtful for a minute or two, for the sake of appearances. Then I said, “It’s not a myth. You could put that in an eighth-grade science text, and I don’t think there’s a school board anywhere that would quibble with it—leaving aside the Creationists.”
“I agree wholeheartedly. Haven’t I said that the story is ambient in your culture? Children assemble it from many media, including science textbooks.”
“Then what are you saying? Are you trying to tell me that this isn’t a factual account?”
“It’s full of facts, of course, but their arrangement is purely mythical.”
“I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
“You’ve obviously turned off your mind. Mother Culture has crooned you to sleep.”
I gave him a hard look. “Are you saying that evolution is a myth?”
“No.”
“Are you saying that man did not evolve?”
“No.”
“Then what is it?”
Ishmael looked at me with a smile. Then he shrugged his shoulders. Then he raised his eyebrows.
I stared at him and thought: I’m being teased by a gorilla. It didn’t help.
“Play it again,” he told me.
When it was over, I said, “Okay, I heard one thing, the word appeared. I said that finally man appeared. Is that it?”
“No, it’s nothing like that. I’m not quibbling over a word. It was clear from the context that the word appeared was just a synonym for evolved.”
“Then what the hell is it?”
“You’re really not thinking, I’m afraid. You’ve recited a story you’ve heard a thousand times, and now you’re listening to Mother Culture as she murmurs in your ear: ‘There, there, my child, there’s nothing to think about, nothing to worry about, don’t get excited, don’t listen to the nasty animal, this is no myth, nothing I tell you is a myth, so there’s nothing to think about, nothing to worry about, just listen to my voice and go to sleep, go to sleep, go to sleep….’”
I chewed on a lip for a while, then I said, “That doesn’t help.”
“All right,” he said. “I’ll tell you a story of my own, and maybe that’ll help.” He nibbled for a moment on a leafy wand, closed his eyes, and began...

Excerpt From: Quinn, Daniel. “Ishmael.” A Bantam/Turner Book, 2009-12-16. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/EKycz.l

ahh, very peaceful... but wasn't intending for this to be a private thread... :D
But anyhow this seems interesting, a bunch of different people each reading a section of Ishmael, covering it in its entirety, for what it is worth...

🔗 Media content

Can we get a synopsis?

The question in one paragraph?

Thank you very much for your reply. Wikipedia as usual has a succinct overview. Though i think the novel is more than the sum of its parts. It is a bit of an experience, trying like the protagonist to keep up with Ishmael, following his Socratic method step by step. At least it was for me.

The question in one paragraph... Is the destruction we are inflicting on the world, and on our selves because humanity is flawed, weak, bumbling? Or is it because our culture believes and acts as though every inch of the planet belongs to humans, who are the ultimate end of creation. Will this be the end of creation, or what other choice do we have? Since 7.5 billion of us cannot go back to being hunter-gathers, now what? Could things like extinct cultures, early humans, the behavior of animals in nature, and the book of Genesis offer clues to understanding the "story" we are enacting, if looked at in a new way? And finally, can we escape this story before it kills us?

This quote from The Story of B by Daniel Quinn:

“Every creature born in the living community belongs to that community. I mean it belongs in the sense that your skin or your nervous system belongs to you. The mouse we saw didn’t just ‘live in’ the park community, the way you might live in an apartment in Chicago or Fresno. Every molecule in the mouse’s body was drawn from this community and eventually had be returned to this community. It would be legitimate to say that this mouse was an expression of this community the way Leonardo da Vinci was an expression of Renaissance Italy.
“The individual lives in dynamic tension with the community, withdrawing to burrow, hive, nest, lodge, or den for safety’s sake but never totally self-sufficient there, always compelled to return and make itself available, as this mouse did. This tension is a phrase of the law, inspiring the trapdoor spider to seal its burrow like a bank vault and inspiring the spider wasp to become a safebreaker.
“Nothing in the community lives in isolation from the rest, not even the queens of the social insects. Nothing lives only in itself, needing nothing from the community. Nothing lives only for itself, owing nothing to the community. Nothing is untouchable or untouched. Every life is on loan from the community from birth and without fail is paid back to the community in death. The community is a web of life, and every strand of the web is a path to all the other strands. Nothing is exempt or excused. Nothing is special. Nothing lives on a strand by itself, unconnected to the rest. As you saw yesterday, nothing is wasted, not a drop of water or a molecule of protein—or the egg of a fly. This is the sweetness and the miracle of it all, Jared. Everything that lives is food for another. Everything that feeds is ultimately itself fed upon or in death returns its substance to the community.”

(Excerpt From: Quinn, Daniel. “The Story of B.” Bantam Books, 2010-01-13. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.)

This is a poetic and elegant way to describe the inter-relatedness of all creatures. And as such, i am inspired by these words, and would agree.

Is this just happy talk? Mushy New Age teaching? Just a "circle of life" cliche? Applicable only to the physical and material dimension?

Somehow this is all counter to our mindset, which is that everything and everyone is at its core Individuals. That our nature is absolutely separate and independent and individual. Salvation is individual and damnation is individual. As is karma. We are like marbles in a bowl. In proximity, maybe even touching, but clearly separate. Our source is individual, as is our destiny. Inside and out, top to bottom, now and forever. Separate.

This belief, I propose, is one half of the problem that allows ignorance and evil (for lack of better terms) to spread. The other half is the belief that the entire planet belongs to Humans (the undisputed pinnacle of Creation) to use in any way that suits. Which boils down to turning anything and everything into human products and foods so that... there may be even more pinnacles of Creation walking around.

The first view is how we view ourselves, and how we relate with other people. The second view is how we view the living world. When absolute individualism meets absolute voracious-ness and insatiably, the result is what we as a species is rushing toward.

This is the theory and proposal. It may also qualify as a diagnosis, but that remains to be seen and proven.

Quoting 0 thru 9

The question in one paragraph... Is the destruction we are inflicting on the world, and on our selves because humanity is flawed, weak, bumbling? Or is it because our culture believes and acts as though every inch of the planet belongs to humans, who are the ultimate end of creation. Will this be the end of creation, or what other choice do we have? Since 7.5 billion of us cannot go back to being hunter-gathers, now what? Could things like extinct cultures, early humans, the behavior of animals in nature, and the book of Genesis offer clues to understanding the "story" we are enacting, if looked at in a new way? And finally, can we escape this story before it kills us?

In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright shows how people in earlier civilizations such as Easter Island and the Maya saw red flags, tried to stave off ecological collapse, but were no match for the powerful in their society who had a vested interest in the status quo. Sound familiar?

But, Wright says, while the ecological collapse of civilizations like the Roman Empire was destructive, the destruction was limited geographically. However, the ecological collapse of Western civilization today could be global in scope, Wright says.

I don't know enough about ecology to say if all humans will perish. My guess is that the people in the world who still have something close to agrarian life will survive the evolutionary cut while industrial society and its members who do not know how to provide their own food are both destroyed.

Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO

In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright shows how people in earlier civilizations such as Easter Island and the Maya saw red flags, tried to stave off ecological collapse, but were no match for the powerful in their society who had a vested interest in the status quo. Sound familiar?

(Y) Thanks for your reply. Yes, those examples are eerily familiar. Have not read Wright's book, but i appreciated Jared Diamond's Collapse which seems similar. Arguably, Western civilization has become the new global civilization. Arguably (for some), we are headed for some tough times ahead- ecologically, economically, politically, population-wise, and otherwise-wise. The question is how to stave off the impending calamities. Daniel Quinn would say that "vision" is the compelling force of a culture. The Vision of our culture is headed for disasters.

The absolutist thinking that the Earth is naught but raw material for commerce is inherently unstable. Of course, the Earth (and Sun) provides materials, food, and everything that our bodies need. That is only natural. It is the absoluteness of that Vision which is the problem. It has gone way, way past any balance point. It is not even looking for a balance point. Quinn would say this has been slowing gaining momentum for thousands of years. Hunting and gathering slowly became hunting and gardening. Which became herding and gardening. Which became agriculture. Which became the currently dominant form of creating food: "totalitarian agriculture", in his words. Plow under any forest, wipe out any species that dares feed on any crop or herd. A poisonous theory using millions of tons of poison. The fact that this way of life has lasted this long doesn't guarantee that it will last much longer.

Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO

But, Wright says, while the ecological collapse of civilizations like the Roman Empire was destructive, the destruction was limited geographically. However, the ecological collapse of Western civilization today could be global in scope, Wright says.

I don't know enough about ecology to say if all humans will perish. My guess is that the people in the world who still have something close to agrarian life will survive the evolutionary cut while industrial society and its members who do not know how to provide their own food are both destroyed.

Yes, i would agree with those statements. I do not know what the optimal world population is. But every life is precious. I have read those that say the population should be less than a billion, say. Which makes me think, "ok, great! are you volunteering to leave then?" :D The history of the Roman Empire is very instructive, though there are many interpretations. An even-handed study of "empire" as an entity can lead to potential insights into our situation. One best not put blinders on, and give unquestioning allegiance to a system. That would be in bad faith and unphilosophical. Even if one cannot spare much time to study the topic, the first and most important step is to not swallow the pill that your mind and heart know is BS. Because that BS is mental toxic sludge. It is not necessary to go around protesting, arguing, and blaming. Just don't swallow what is known to be false and unbalanced, at least for the sake of one's sanity and health, if nothing else.

Quinn makes the same point, that civilizations in the past were buffered from each other, and their destructiveness was contained. Now it seems that it's becoming a situation where we are all in the same boat. Whether that boat is a life raft, a pleasure cruise, the Titanic, the HMS Bounty, or something else entirely, remains to be seen.

I believe that Ken Wilber offers a lot of helpful insights in his work that if heeded might inform some of the change we need to avoid further ecological disaster.

Alas, Ken Wilber is not accepted by the mainstream intellectual or spiritual communities and is, as far as I can tell, considered to be a quack.

Reply to WISDOMfromPO-MO
Interesting, thanks! Could you possibly say more about Wilber in relation to the current ecological situation and related topics? I think i see what you mean, but don't wish to assume.

Like you, i think Wilber has much to offer, if for no other reason than he covers an incredible amount of subjects. One can dispute major or minor aspects of his work, but it simply cannot be all tossed aside. For instance, some feel he leans too heavily on the Perennial Philosophy or that he is too skimpy with citing scientific sources. Perhaps, but even despite these and other flaws, he is worth reading. (Not that I understand everything he wrote! :) )

Quoting 0 thru 9

Could you possibly say more about Wilber in relation to the current ecological situation and related topics

"Rather, an all-quadrant, all-level approach to ecology allows us to situate the physiosphere, the biosphere, the noosphere, and the theosphere in their appropriate relationships in the Kosmos at large, and thus we can emphasize the crucial importance of the biosphere without having to reduce everything to the biosphere..." -- Ken Wilber.

I read Ishmael years ago. Profound reading, but I'm not entirely sold. Makes me wonder how a Kurzweil/Quinn debate would go. Quinn includes in the myth telling that we're headed for some kind of Star Trek like future, when in fact we're headed for collapse. Kurzweil would say that our technology will save us, transforming human society into something greater than ST.

Reply to WISDOMfromPO-MO
Thanks. I will have to readSex, Ecology, and Spirituality. Just saw Wilber has a new 800-page book out. For some fun beach reading! :D

Reply to Marchesk
Thanks for your reply. That would be an interesting debate. I would say that at best, the technology is only as beneficial, smart, and good as the people making and using it. We are going to need every bit of innovation there is, and any that can be devised, to deal with the challenges we face. Nothing wrong with technology per se, which is simply the practical result of the sciences. Quinn says that if we simply try to conquer outer space the way we have virtually enslaved the earth (and each other for that matter. An ever-expanding billion dollar corporation paying its workers $8 per hour?), we will get the same disastrous results. That is, if advanced human civilization as such is still functioning in the not-to-distant future.

Quoting 0 thru 9

That is, if advanced human civilization as such is still functioning in the not-to-distant future.

Someone might have said about the various fighting clans in the past (Vikings, Mongols, etc) that if human beings kept doing that, we would have disastrous results by now. But aside from the two world wars, it would seem that most places on the planet are trending toward more peaceful coexistence with their neighbors over time.

Human society evolves. Democracy is the norm across the world now. If and when we colonize space, we may have entered a post work world where the machines do all the labor for us.

Reply to Marchesk
I genuinely hope you are right... for everybody's sake. You presented in general more of a best case scenario, maybe I'm looking at worst case possibilities. And that is fine; hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Almost anything is possible at this point. What concerns me is the direction circumstances seem to be going. A potential large natural disaster combined with a powerful "elite" in government and commerce that are prepared to take full advantage of the situation to gain even more control is a recipe for a nightmare. Basically the scenario in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. I agree when Quinn writes that there is nothing fundamentally wrong or evil with humans that prevents us from living sustainably and relatively peacefully. It all in the "story" (a scenario interrelating humans, the world, and "the gods") we are told and believe about our life on earth:

[i]“There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will act like lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now.”

Excerpt From: Quinn, Daniel. “Ishmael.” A Bantam/Turner Book, 2009-12-16. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright. [/i]

Is there some other way to live besides trying for total domination over nature and each other? What is the use of maximum production and maximum profits? What good is a reward if you ain't around to use it? Can't we have the good things in life without this extremist strategy? Even if there were no other viable alternative way to live at this point (and I believe there is an alternative), it is hard to ignore the beliefs that got us to this point.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Evolution operates through breeding, whether it's kind of choosy or a free-for-all (my favorite kind). I haven't read Quinn; is he a rivetingly good author?

The only conceivable way we could remove ourselves from the process of evolution is IF a) we had a complete understanding of which genes did what (understood the entire genome) AND b) tightly controlled breeding was directed toward precise goals (such as achieving the ideal human physical form along with brilliant intelligence and laid back personal affect).

Were we, a la Brave New World, to carefully redefine our species from one that evolved randomly to one that changed according to a very specific plan) we could say evolution (as it is understood, at least, had ceased to operate. Fortunately for us, we don't have anything even remotely resembling complete understanding of the human genome, and thus we do not have the information needed to precisely direct our future condition. In addition to not having highly detailed genetic knowledge, we also do not have a clear understanding of what our future in the cosmos should be. Our ideal physical form and intelligence would presumably be suited for a particular role.

Would a laid-back personality be a good thing? Not if in the future we had to fight alien species from "out there in space". Aggressive personalities would be more important. Whether ideal bodies would matter would depend on how we had to fight. Hand to hand combat? Quality bodies would be important. Robotic and death ray weapons? Intelligence would matter much more than muscle.

Since the other thread on evolution was closed, I thought I would respond to you (and to @bloodninja) here if anyone wanted to continue the discussion. (Hopefully without the eugenics. :wink: )

I would agree though, evolution can’t be stopped. Whether we live in cities, villages, forests, or savannahs, it goes on like some kind of meta-reproduction. Evolution is an odd thing since it affects us absolutely, and it is almostly completely out of our control. And talking about something stretching back millions, no... billions of years into the past, and perhaps even longer into the future makes me feel a bit dizzy. It’s science, to be sure. But it has a mythic quality to it. Which is the aspect Daniel Quinn writes about with such insight and grace, in my opinion. Jared Diamond covers similar ground, but in a more traditionally anthropological way. The two writers complement each other’s work, I think. Here’s the part from Ishmael concerning evolution. It’s long, but gives a rather poetic view:

[hide][i]”What happens to people who live in the hands of the gods?”
“What do you mean?”
“I mean, what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods that does not happen to people who build their lives on the knowledge of good and evil?”
“Well, let’s see,” I said. “I don’t suppose this is what you’re getting at, but this is what comes to mind. People who live in the hands of the gods don’t make themselves rulers of the world and force everyone to live the way they live, and people who know good and evil do.”
“You’ve turned the question round back to front,” said Ishmael. “I asked what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods that doesn’t happen to those who know good and evil, and you told me just the opposite: what doesn’t happen to people who live in the hands of the gods that does happen to those who know good and evil.”
“You mean you’re looking for something positive that happens to people who live in the hands of the gods.”
“That’s right.”
“Well, they do tend to let the people around them live the way they want to live.”
“You’re telling me something they do, not something that happens to them. I’m trying to focus your attention on the effects of this life-style.”
“I’m sorry. I’m afraid I just don’t know what you’re getting at.”
“You do, but you’re not used to thinking about it in these terms.”
“Okay.”
“You remember the question we started out to answer when you arrived this afternoon: How did man become man? We’re still after the answer to that question.”
I groaned, fully and frankly.
“Why do you groan?” Ishmael asked.
“Because questions of that generality intimidate me. How did man become man? I don’t know. He just did it. He did it the way birds became birds and the way that horses became horses.”
“Exactly so.”
“Don’t do that to me,” I told him.
“Evidently you don’t understand what you just said.”
“Probably not.”
“I’ll try to clarify it for you. Before you were Homo, you were what?”
“Australopithecus.”
“Good. And how did Australopithecus become Homo?”
“By waiting.”
“Please. You’re here to think.”
“Sorry.”
“Did Australopithecus become Homo by saying, ‘We know good and evil as well as the gods, so there’s no need for us to live in their hands the way rabbits and lizards do. From now on we will decide who lives and who dies on this planet, not the gods.’”
“No.”
“Could they have become man by saying that?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because they would have ceased to be subject to the conditions under which evolution takes place.”
“Exactly. Now you can answer the question: What happens to people—to creatures in general—who live in the hands of the gods?”
“Ah. Yes, I see. They evolve.”
“And now you can answer the question I posed this morning: How did man become man?”
“Man became man by living in the hands of the gods.”
“By living the way the Bushmen of Africa live.”
“That’s right.”
“By living the way the Kreen-Akrore of Brazil live.”
“Right again.”
“Not the way Chicagoans live?”
“No.”
“Or Londoners?”
“No.”
“So now you know what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods.”
“Yes. They evolve.”
“Why do they evolve?”
“Because they’re in a position to evolve. Because that’s where evolution takes place. Pre-man evolved into early man because he was out there competing with all the rest. Pre-man evolved into early man because he didn’t take himself out of the competition, because he was still in the place where natural selection is going on.”
“You mean he was still a part of the general community of life.”
“That’s right.”
“And that’s why it all happened—why Australopithecus became Homo habilis and why Homo habilis became Homo erectus and why Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and why Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens.”
“Yes.”
“And then what happened?”
“And then the Takers said, ‘We’ve had enough of living in the hands of the gods. No more natural selection for us, thanks very much.’”
“And that was that.”
“And that was that.”
“You remember I said that to enact a story is to live so as to make it come true.”
“Yes.”
“According to the Taker story, creation came to an end with man.”
“Yes. So?”
“How would you live so as to make that come true? How would you live so as to make creation come to an end with man?”
“Oof. I see what you mean. You would live the way the Takers live. We’re definitely living in a way that’s going to put an end to creation. If we go on, there will be no successor to man, no successor to chimpanzees, no successor to orangutans, no successor to gorillas—no successor to anything alive now. The whole thing is going to come to an end with us. In order to make their story come true, the Takers have to put an end to creation itself—and they’re doing a damned good job of it.”

“4
“When we began and I was trying to help you find the premise of the Taker story, I told you that the Leaver story has an entirely different premise.”
“Yes.”
“Perhaps you’re ready to articulate that premise now.”
“I don’t know. At the moment I can’t even think of the Taker premise.”
“It’ll come back to you. Every story is a working out of a premise.”
“Yes, okay. The premise of the Taker story is the world belongs to man” I thought for a couple of minutes, then I laughed. “It’s almost too neat. The premise of the Leaver story is man belongs to the world.”
“Meaning what?”
“Meaning—” I barked a laugh. “It’s really too much.”
“Go on.”
“It means that, right from the beginning, everything that ever lived belonged to the world—and that’s how things came to be this way. Those single-celled creatures that swam in the ancient oceans belonged to the world, and because they did, everything that followed came into being. Those club-finned fish offshore of the continents belonged to world, and because they did, the amphibians eventually came into being. And because the amphibians belonged to the world, the reptiles eventually came into being. And because the reptiles belonged to the world, the mammals eventually came into being. And because the mammals belonged to the world, the primates eventually came into being. And because the primates belonged to the world, Australopithecus eventually came into being. And because Australopithecus belonged to the world, man eventually came into being. And for three million years man belonged to the world—and because he belonged to the world, he grew and developed and became brighter and more dexterous until one day he was so bright and dexterous that we had to call him Homo sapiens sapiens, which means that he was us.”
“And that’s the way the Leavers lived for three million years—as if they belonged to the world.”
“That’s right. And that’s how we came into being.”

Excerpt From
Ishmael
Daniel Quinn
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ishmael/id420055326?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright. [/i] [/hide]