Reply
Fri 12 Nov, 2004 04:07 pm
for those who have read his books. what do you think?
has anyone found a legitimate hole in his arguements?
Hey Brendan, well his theory depends much on the condition that only one group of people developed totalitarian agriculture and assimilated the rest of the world. I do agree with alot of what he says and it is completely true that our current path will end in disaster. Read this article which suggests that intensive agriculture may have began because of a cooling period, its interesting. ==>
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2299998
Daniel Quinns theory would not be as credible if it was discovered that this type of agriculture was developed in two diffrent places with out contact with eachother due to the fact that it would help to suggest that maybe this is the human, totalitarian agriculture. (Just a sloppily put together opinion for now)
From what ive found out in a book by Jared Diamond "Guns, Germs and Steel" Agriculture that fits the category of totalitarion agriculture came about in 7 different places without contact with eachother, and that not through conquering but through trade this type of agriculture spread through out the known world. Some cultures did not use it, many did.
All this does is refute a little of his argument on that this was caused all by one culture. Which techincally we are now.
It does not change the fact tho that we will exceed carrying capacity and disaster will ensue.
But is it also plausible to suggest that as intelligent and sentient beings we will be able to defy biological laws and think our way out? Come out unscathed with a solution that allows us to keep our culture and also survive?
To know for sure is impossible and Quinn's guess is as good, and in most cases better, as any.