The ultimate goal of any species is to survive and reproduce so that their species can continue to thrive and evolve. The fact of the matter is that living things of all sorts evolve, or are created, to fill a specific niche within the rest of nature. One point Quinn makes, and I agree with, is that it's very species-centric to believe that humans are somehow the "goal" or end product of millions or billions or years of evolution. For example, ask yourself this: Why should it be assumed that the earth needs to exist, or have human, or non-human, life in it at all?. One could always delve even deeper and farther into the biological past, present, and future of our planet, galaxy, or universe. It seems to me that while Quinn raises several interesting points, and addresses issues rarely touched by other authors, he falls into the same human-centric view of the earth that he rallies against. He draws a distinction between "takers" or those who seek to exert dominance over the world and all things in it, and the "leavers" or those, such as hunter-gatherers, who live within the confines of nature's design. Through Ishmael, Quinn points out the fallacy in the inherent human belief that mankind is somehow the apex of evolution or creation. In the pages that follow, the gorilla, Ishmael, paints a picture of human history as an outsider a non-human.
Daniel Quinn's Ishmael reads like a Socratic dialogue between a man and an intelligent gorilla, which places an ad in a newspaper seeking a student with a strong desire to save the world.
0 kommentar(er)
