Re: The Food Race and Free Will

I read the link…yes, this is a common theme in all of Quinn's work…

But the most important part of all this is the  'Community of LIfe” (spends a lot of time on this in  Story of B)…and the realization that as we increase food, increase human population–we are replacing biomass (diversity of species) with humanmass (one species).  This is a recipe for disaster!

Yet, clearly humans do not respect the need for the rest of the community of life–we just can not seem to appreciate the value in all the other species and so we decimate them as we take over the land to grow more food to grow more people….

So, 'free will', to me any way, is the decision to understand/choose to honor the entire community of Life.  If we all did this, the decision to grow less food, reduce human population while restoring/honoring the earth–plant, water, earth, air, animal–isn't a giving up of anything–but a 'getting' in the most wondrous of way.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

I'm not disagreeing with the Big Picture, but I do think that Quinn's Food Race thesis is just not very well thought out.

In the US, agriculture has so far outstripped population that:

1. We have an obesity problem.
2. In parts of the Midwest last winter, it was cheaper to heat a house by burning corn than by burning propane.
3. We are diverting cropland from food production to ethanol and biodiesel.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

Booner,

I understand your point and agree that the “food race” is only part of the problem, not THE problem–but I think Quinn would also agree with us. I am not sure he is focusing strictly on the “food race” as THE solution as much as he is focusing on HOW we obtain our food–Tribal vs totalitarian agriculture.

Quinn does stubbornly clings to his food/population theory but I have never been able to accept it–despite REALLY wanting to. He is so passionate about it and spends so much time in his books and speeches making that point that I always think I must be missing the deeper truth behind it. I can accept that we are essentially replacing the bio mass with human mass and I can also accept that by default, if more of us exist, more of us must be eating more of the available food, we aren’t eating air–Two of his key points. What he doesn’t say or fully explain is how his analogies work. Consider his popular “mice in a cage” analogy:

If you place two mice in a cage and provide enough food to feed 100 mice, the population of the mice will eventually reach 100. If you add more food the population will continue to grow exponentially– but if you only supply enough food for 100 mice the population will hover slightly above or below that 100 mice figure–achieving population “control”. I get that but I also cannot see how that is possible without the elder or offspring mice starving for lack of enough food. There is an implication that mysteriously “nature” will halt the population and just hover around 100 without death due to lack of food.

Is he implying with a limitation of food to feed the population at one point (100 mice) that “nature” will create a harmony and there will suddenly be less reproductive activity or perhaps the same reproductive activity but less or no mice born? It seems this would be a rather simple experiment to test his theory and although I have no doubt that the population will in fact stay stable at 100 +/- I am also equally confidant that the cage will be littered with many dead, malnutritioned mice. The analogy seems even less realistic when you factor humans into the story as we don’t engage in sexual activity simply for reproductive reasons–we do it for pleasure primarily. Quinn is certainly not afraid to be controversial so it strikes me additionally perplexing why he doesn’t just come out and acknowledge that food controls will result in famine for some in the population. He in fact states just the opposite. But how can that be then? The only conclusion he allows us to make is that the reproductive urge or reproductive success is somehow affected simply by less food. I guess I have trouble with that…. His systems based position with negative feedback and positive feedback postulates that food is the cause of the effect. I would flip that around and argue the traditional view that reproduction is the cause. Hasn’t someone tested this? It certainly would end the argument–at least as far as the mouse species is concerned.

Regardless of his food control theory I still find incredible insight from Quinn into how we got this way and how tribalism and animism is our only way out. Ann is the “Quinn expert” around here though and may offer a welcome new insight into his theory.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

I'll keep this simple….
The key issue here is again…living by the laws of the Community of Life–
Cooperation
Cradle to grave security
Abundance for all, scarcity for all
Tribes–be they human, lion, ant–essentially live an 'abundance for all, scarcity for all'–in other words–if there's food, essentially we all eat in order to keep the tribe alive (yes, younger ones get perhaps less due to size of stomach–but 'elders' know they need kids and kids know they need elder's so they all eat within the available abundance.  By and large, these 'groups' stabilize their population size to live within available food sources.  But of course…food is a tricky thing due to weather and many uncontrollables–so some of these tribes make it…some do not…

BUT, when humans decided tha tthe laws of the Community of Life didn't apply to them, Agriculture allowed us to 'control the food source' and this enabled population growth…but a funny thing happened when we did this—we made a fundamental shift to a mindset of 'abundance for some and scarcity for most'…and we locked up the extra food–this changed the previous laws of the Communiity of LIfe…
Cooperation became competition
Cradle to grave security became 'every man for himself'
Abundance for all/scarcity for all became Abundance for some/scarcity for most.

WAR became a way of life to support this….(not that tribes in the past didn't 'fight/squabble–but wholesale WAR to wipe out other species didn't come until agriculture allowed us to support armies who could travel and attack for months on end)

Quinn does acknowledge that 'food controls' result in famine for some (scarcity for most)–but it isn't because there isn't enough food–there's plenty of food–the 'control' here is the reality when you live outside the laws of the Community of Life–letting people starve is considered 'acceptable' by those with abundance…..We don't have famine today because there isn't enough food, we have famine because those who control the abundance of food make sure that 'they get most' and others don't.  We call that 'normal' now…as tribes produce wholesale 'war' on others….each protecting their 'right' to the food…..(they might be fighting over 'land' but land = food in the long run)

we have now lived under this 'story' for 10,000 years.  Is it working?

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

I think I may have found the missing piece to the puzzle: infanticide.  Contrary to Quinn's Food Race thesis, it is possible to stabilize population somewhere below the just-barely-enough-calories-to-survive level, and the time-tested method in hunter/gatherer tribes (including gorillas) is infanticide. 

This explains how the mice-in-a-cage example reaches equilibrium: overcrowded mice eat their young. 

I'll admit that I'm rather squeamish about the idea of infanticide, and much prefer birth control plus abortion.  But my point is that Quinn is just wrong about the Food Race.  It is possible to address the food/population equation from the population side.

Abundance for all, scarcity for all?  Yes, if  by “all” we mean “all except newborns”.

Cradle-to-grave security? Yes, but not everyone makes it as far as the cradle.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

Well, infanticide might be used during times of low food availability–but it is not the 'preferred' method of managing/balancing population on the human level….

I think your point that 'the food race' can be won on the population side–yes, if the population is conscious of its connection to the food/population and thus chooses to manage its population (something we weren't able to do easily until 1965 and the advent of birth control methods that were 99% successful)…

This 'consciousness', which Sean has mentioned numerous times is an 'evolving' process.  Animist, (pre, 10,000 bce) were conscious of the interconnection of tribe size and food–limiting their population to an amount they could find/support with food.  We lost that 'consciousness' –today the average human walking on this planet has no awareness of the correlation between 'making babies' means impacting  the earth/community of life.  All they're doing is 'having a kid', and they're not consciousness enough of anything beyond 'my kid, my needs, 'my….taking'…..

Yes, if we could teach/show folks that population control is a proactive, conscious choice vs. the 'if we feed them they will come population explosion' acceptance–we would have solution/change the world well in hand!  One generation of 1 child families, world wide would make a population correction, enable less biomass to be consumed for humanmass and we'd have a shot at improving the whole world.

But in a world where producing a child is a 'right'/entitlement–and you can have as many as you want–added to this Bush's/Pope's abhorrence of birth control,/abortion on a world wide scale resulting in on-going, growing populations…..we're in trouble. Should we stop growing food to force them to stop making babies–that's not going to happen at this point–so, Yes, let's start on the  conscious population control vs. starving the masses! :) (and really infanticide isn't a widely used choice for populaiton reduction)
ann

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

Very thoughtful post, Ann. And I wonder how many parents would be eager to send their son or daughter to war if they were limited to one.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

I suppose that might just be one of the “missing pieces” to Quinn’s theory.. an unpleasant thought though…and nearly an impossible consideration for the human species. It would be great to have an anthropologist weigh in on this as I am sure there is a wealth of information and study regarding this out there.

This thread has had me thinking on this issue quite a bit lately…..and I had this thought today that the risk we run with simple analogies of isolating a piece of the whole to explain the whole is that we miss the other less obvious contributing factors that affect the end result.

In our “mouse example” it is easy to imagine the sterile controled cage and the isolated mice population affect. In the “real world” where a fully integrated tribal/animist approach would be lived there would be many other factors that would undoubtedly affect population controls in addition to food supply.

A human species example of this would be our current nursing homes and elder care facilities. Mother Culture loves to extol the modern “advancement” in lifetime longevity- bragging to us the increase in years we now live. But what quality of life are we providing the thousands of elder humans who have not only lost the will to live but no longer have the faculties to survive. Personally, I would rather die a dignified death at 65 when my physical body or mind is unable to continue than to live an additional 15+ years in a slow death artificially supported by those I do not know in an environment where I have nothing to offer except to diminish the food supply and provide employment for my caregivers. But again, this is just another isolated example–in this case, on the final years of life.

There are so many other aspects of a truly lived animist life where other population controls would also be affected–Would a vital, animistic meaningful life make us less risk adverse so that some perish in other pursuits at younger ages?–from pursuing food ( or becoming food!) to engaging in activities that cause us to perish “prematurely”. In the animal kingdom there is no guarantee that all reach maturity or that all survive to old years–in fact, most do not. The length of a lifetime has little to do with the quality of life. Our “civilized” approach disagrees though and equates long life with a good life or a successful life.

And these are but just a couple of additional isolated examples of population controls that a fully realized animist world offers…

Ann does a wonderful job here of tugging us back from a strictly scientific/biological discussion to a more fully realized understanding of the WHOLE of animism. I think I personally worked myself out of my self imposed limitation of Quinn’s theory. Yes, it DOES end and begin with FOOD but the many other contributing factors of a truly lived animist life is the WHOLE answer to population, food supply and a bio-interconnected life.

Well hot damn…this thread answered a difference I had with Quinn for a long time now. Now THAT is what Zaadz is all about eh? Thanks Booner and Ann…You both helped me find MY answer anyway.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

Well, now that we’ve got THAT thrashed out, how do we make New Tribalism work? I have to admit that I find Quinn’s prescription sketchy and somewhat unconvincing.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

Where do you specifically see issues Burt? I’ll admit that the concept fully in action today seems unlikely but I think there are aspects to tribalism that we can implement successfully–especially in business which may seem contradictory–but I feel it is one area we can implement today with less cultural upheaval ( although that is what is really needed)….

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

I agree that we can apply it to the business arena, Sean, at least some business arenas fairly rapidly. I guess my imagination breaks down when I try to think of what a fully integrated 21st century New Tribal society would look like.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

Let's start a new thread on this issue of “what does a fully integrated 21st century tribal society look like?”…okay?  See you there….

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

Are any of you aware that originally women didn't ovulate once a month and especially during times of crises (or when food supply was low).  Now, this was obviously natures way of not bringing a child into an unsafe world, hence, low food supply would result in a more stabilized population.  However, we now don't follow by this rule due to 2.6 millions of years of evolution (due in part by our cultural surplus which has had an effect on our bodies).  Has anybody every wondered why even when there is starvation in parts of Africa, children are still being produced?  Things are more complicated than this simple equation: less food surplus=less people.

Re: The Food Race and Free Will

I didn't know it was so much an ovulation issue…but yes in many tribes, average time between children was four years–which is both an issue about food/nursing but also from a developmental level–that's about the right age for a child to be able to start taking care of itself a bit–and thus, if a new child comes, the mother can release some of the attention on the older child (and its also good for the child at that age….whereas we have kids now, like 2 years apart–and most 2 year olds aren't ready to give up their mother attachment–they do it because they have to..not because they want to)

And as for the large number of children being produced–despite very little food….There's also a huge infant mortality issue within that–tied into 'no birth control' as well as one other factor–about the only 'legacy' an adult has in those cultures is the 'children' they produce. Knowing many will die, mixed with poor or no birth control and the drive to procreate is a deadly combination–literally and figuratively.