As
the Wheel Turns
In reading Ishmael, Quinn’s views on humanity and the world as
struck me as somewhere between fascinating and arcane. One of the
clearer messages that Quinn has is the problem with our belief that we
are exempt from nature’s balance, and he illustrates this by showing
us the food problems from nature’s point of view.
Quinn
(through Ishmael) seems to understand that the human population problem
stems from the conflict between our own misguided beliefs of
philanthropy and his laws of living. When we (as a people) see a region
where farms are failing and children
are starving, our first thought is to send over aid packages of
food, and it seems like the right thing to do. What we don’t realize
is that by giving them food, what we’re doing is upsetting the balance
put in place by nature, and as a consequence, ensuring that the famine
will continue. Quinn says this to explain it to us: “If there are
forty thousand people in an area that can only support thirty thousand,
it’s no kindness to bring in food from the outside to maintain them at
forty thousand.” (Quinn 141). In nature, food is an excellent
population control mechanism—if there is a lack of food, the
population drops until supply meets demand.
In
our society, things are different. If a country is having trouble
feeding its population, we in our infinite wisdom send over UN food aid
packages to ease the famine. On T.V., at church, and even at school, we
see groups asking us to donate food and money to help in this endeavor
for the less fortunate people in Africa and Asia. I had always approved
of this notion, but while reading Ishmael, for the first time, I was
moved to question if this was in fact the “right” thing to do. From
what Quinn was saying, and the logic involved, it seemed plain fact that
giving aid would increase the population and create an even greater need
for outside food. It wouldn’t be the “right” thing for the world
at all. But then again, it doesn’t seem to be good to just let them
starve either.
Many of the
issues presented by Quinn are in essence ‘morals versus logic’. In
most cases, one choice makes more sense than the other, but in an issue
like this concerning the survival of millions, I find it hard to find
either one more favorable. Giving the people aid will continue the
cycle, which is logically a bad thing, but at least they would live for
another generation (until population once again outstrips supply). On
the other hand, denying them aid will cause mass starvation, and
inevitably cause mass deaths, but according to logic, within several
decades, the population will have dropped to levels that could be
sustained by the land. But the moral issues with that choice are not one
easily justified.
I find that
throughout the book, and throughout life, issues in this scale are not
only split between “morals and logic”, but also “today and
tomorrow”. Human morals tend to see things as they are happening in
the here and now, while Nature and scientific logic tend to see the
bigger picture. After some thought, I came to this simple conclusion:
Doing something our way may provide the people of today with a
better life, but it would only make conditions worse for tomorrow’s
children. Doing the same thing nature’s way may seem to cause
more troubles for us of today, but at least it would ensure that
tomorrow’s creatures (human or otherwise) can have the chance they
deserve. And after some more contemplation, I believe that the latter is
the better choice. I’m sure Quinn would agree. But still, who would
want to live with the burden of that choice? Who would be bold enough to
stand up for these “logical” views? I don’t think it will be me,
and probably not anyone else. And of course, once again, the great wheel
will turn, maybe for another generation or two…
