People of India, people of North Africa, people of Bangladesh, all hungry people alike, must starve in order to bring the global population down to a controllable size so that there is enough food for all animals. The argument Ishmael makes here is that world hunger is caused by increased food production. The high food production makes the population increase, which causes further food production, and the cycle repeats itself. Ishmael argues that since governments send aid to those who are starving, the population increase only continues and more people starve. Ishmael, being a gorilla, bases his arguments off of his observations of wildlife from the jungle canopy. He says in the animal kingdom, an animal only kills what it needs for that specific meal; it never kills to have food for later, and neither bothers nor kills that which is does not need for survival. The reason mankind fails at this is because instead of letting people starve so that the population decreases to the point where there is enough food for all living animals, we just keep making more food and worsening the issue. Ishmael then chortles at the incompetence of mankind and nibbles on his bamboo.*
I'm unsure how I feel about this. By today's societal standards, this is obviously considered unethical. Perhaps it would even seem selfish for a country such as the U.S, which has such an abundance of food, to not donate some to those in a need. Ishmael, however, argues it is selfish of humans to think they are always responsible to help, and that starvation is basically nature taking its course. This is a thought provoking proposition, and I wonder how it would go over in the UN. I assume a country like Britain would be strongly opposed to this because they think they are a godsend and should help all developing countries. This meeting would also likely take place behind closed doors, without the knowledge of third world countries. It's an interesting way to end overpopulation as well as world hunger, but I don't know if I can formulate my own opinion on the matter at the moment. Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Also, the law which I spoke briefly about in my previous post has been identified. In short, the law states that no species shall make the life of the world its own. This ties into the idea about world hunger, since certain humans take it upon themselves to try to aid other people. This law is still in development in the novel.
The following image is a drawing in the book that supposedly Ishmael drew. It almost looks like a kindergartner checked this book out before I did and doodled in it to try to make sense of Ishmael's theories. Still, pretty impressive for an ape.
FYI, the "Leavers" referenced in this drawing is tribal people that lived simply and in accordance with nature, and "Takers" is basically mankind in modern society.
*=artistic license
The subject matter in this post is definitely intriguing, especially considering how the solutions that we as Takers typically view as the best route to take when dealing with world hunger are so contrary to the way the Leavers would prefer the situation to be dealt with. While I can see how the idea could work in theory, I think that starvation is too slow of a means of death to effectively "control" a population. Oh and I laughed at "...I wonder how it would go over in the UN." The thought would definitely spark an entertaining conversation.
ReplyDeleteSo Ishmael pretty much supports a survival of the fittest approach? It's certainly a fairly radical idea, though the discussion of overpopulation in literature is a bit common lately. Dan Brown explores this idea in Inferno, though the solution he discusses in quite a bit different, and not as painful of a solution.
ReplyDeleteYou have, once again, served up a J-Mac special of the literary variety. Got to say, I love it. I agree that Quinn's ideas are certainly unethical and a bit ignorant. He can comfortably say that these people should starve because he isn't the one starving. Ishmael states that it's selfish to think that one human is responsible for helping out another. But really, he's a gorilla, what does he know about humanity? The reason humanity exists today is because of a sense of altruism. We have a strong group dynamic to make up for our physical weaknesses. In that case being responsible for others is a selfish thing, but I think letting others starve and die is even more selfish. Ishmael also talks about how more food means more population, which, to a point, is true. However, the interesting thing is that, looking at how countries develop, population stabilizes overtime. The reason for this, if you haven't looked into it before, is that with higher life expectancy rates and lower childhood mortality rates, people have less kids. If you're pretty much guaranteed to keep your children you only need to have the number you want. If the fate of your children is uncertain, you'll tend to have a lot to make up for the possibility of losing a lot of children. As countries develop population booms as a result of the mentality being that your children are at a high risk of death when that risk is actually becoming increasingly lower. When a nation enters the first world 'stage' or classification that boom pretty much stops and often times you get a graying population and a decreased birth rate. If we were to fix every country in the world, I would argue that population would end up at a sustainable level and that the survival of the fittest mentality proposed by Ishmael would be unnecessary. It's a tall order but a more noble goal then watching people die.
ReplyDeleteAlso I feel you about Britain, the Redcoats haven't been put in their place since our boy G Dubs wrecked 'em way back when.
Sounds like an interesting novel with a lot of interesting views on the world. Do you agree or empathise with any of Ishmael's views? If so which ones?
ReplyDelete