I Found this Grammarless Mortifying Essay I Wrote In High School about this Book called "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. (This seems to be a draft to it)
The world was made for man, & he was meant to rule & conquer it.” Why does Ishmael find this problematic? Where does this Taker story come from? is there another story that might be helpful in healing humans' relationship with the Earth (themselves)?
The Mortifying Ishmael Probably Without A Thesis -
The taker story is about the development of a portion of the human race becoming speciesist and becoming more & more damaging as it achieves its accolades. These accolades such as irrigation, mass production of goods, or protections from our (as in us humans') limiting factors such as disease, extreme weather, or predation. These achievements give the takers a seemingly unfair edge where we can seemingly play like the gods. An edge where we the takers pursue theomorphism at the putative expense of the other species on the planet(s). I believe that people should assist all the species, their environment, and give succor to the folks in their shared biomass. All of this would aid their attempts to become god-like creatures especially in becoming a divine altruistic David Bowie-like god..
There’s no possible way currently to find out if the universe was made for the peoplekind species or any other species. Because in the search of evidence for such we can point out several reasons why & not for any species. Instead we find various species working in harmony; we observe the species' limiting factors and their niches all within their ecosystems. Heck even us takers (i.e. humans) compete in the state of nature. So tis (really) best to drop the question entirely unless you desire to be a pochemuchka about it. Or if you have some weird fascistic desire to justify your species being number 1 or something. Daniel Quinn (a human/taker) attacks the thought of his species claiming the throne. Something I may refute saying that maybe we human-folk could be like sweetie-pants dictators helping all the other species get smart. In Daniel Quin's book, he posits the hypothetical of another species from our earthly biomass achieving an equal level of consciousness & intelligence that we do. I find this a lame hypothetical because we probs have to power right now; to help these other species evolve. We don't need to leave them to their own devices. To maybe see these other species evolve to our level in about a few million million years or so. We could herald their abilities & bring them to our level. But, NO apparently we need a beat down (Daniel Quin says) -- cause humans are bad. Daniel then brings up situations where we were inappropriately conducting ourselves (us takers) to the annoyance of other species. But, as I see it we're still developing. So of course we're going to muck up -- at times. That's not specifically human nature that's just straight-up nature -- everybody's a screw-up. Things muck up -- we muck up. Yes, we participate in excessive farming, or we farm in ways in which damage the soil. We humans see these negative practices/effects, we feel bad about them, & we act to fix them. Daniel Quin plays it off as though we all perceive the past as wholly detestable. Which to me is a bit maddening. Yes, I know it's true -- we have done some lame things in the past. But heck it's thanks to the past that we learn. In regards to the overproduction whatnot, I rather have tons of stuff rather than a paucity of stuffs. So I surmise most people would probably choose tons of stuffs. I mean it’s only natural, for people to seek luxuries -- luxuries are quite luxurious.
In relating to, conquering the world. I’d say as of now it is our niche. It's the human thing to do. Many of us like Schumpeter's gale & welcome change. The world isn't perfect and we recognize that. We will surely work to maintain the biomass' homeostasis because us selfish takers have of own homeostasis-es tied to such health of the biomass'/environment's homeostasis. Yes, our humanly interventions may not sustain itself forever, as shown in Ishmael, but, if our interventions are continuous & are ever-adapting, the biomass will be sustained as long as we assist or if we had set in motion an automotive system that does such for us.
Ishmael finds this problematic because he finds that nothing humanity has done in the past has been successful for the earth as a whole & if humanity would continue their efforts it would be insane. But, hey I don’t find ourselves being in this perpetual state of adolescence. I don’t believe we're following the path of insanity expecting a different result from the same experiment. I believe we are adapting like the evolution does with all the species on our planet. Just in a different way. Instead of the traditional mutations in DNA. Were evolving through an explosion of ideas & connect-ted-ness. See our internet, the waning powers of nation-states, and the large gatherings of people apart of what-have-you avowed interests. Our species becoming a melting pot for awesome multiculturalism & not just some human-centric niche loving species. We humans now have biocentrists, cynocentrists [doggys first folk], ecocentrists, and yes we still have a few anthropocentrists. Even if our excess production temporarily affects the environment. We will learn how to fix the environment. We people love all the niches, all the cultures, and mega-nerds. When we become aware of the issue we attempt to solve it. Because that's how we do.
The taker story comes from the assumption that a portion of humanity is significantly separated from another. That’s simply not true. We simply may have different motives. But, heck we're always are supporting one another as we support the other animals as they often help us. Albeit I do concede that a lot of the other animals haven't developed their brains much. Like the Hippos, but if we could genetically engineer the hippos to be (really) smart. So they wouldn't have to be such liability smashing into Walmarts and whatnot.
