Ishmael the Gorilla: Laws of Population (November 2017 Edition)

There are many books that regard the world and how its problems have arisen through various amounts of stress and turmoil but there is one unlike the rest. One that looks at these problems from a different angle through its constant actions of asking questions rather than giving answers in its attempt to engage the reader in a thoughtful discussion. This book, entitled Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, does well in provoking these educated thoughts from the reader as it questions man’s perception of reality and “how things came to be.” It focuses on the main character, the narrator, as he searches for a teacher to help him change the world (Quinn 1). It then transfers to him answering an advertisement in the local paper that read the following. “TEACHER seeks pupil. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person.” They are words that provoke interest in this character as it is his desire to make a difference in the world. Upon navigating to the location given in the advertisement, the narrator is met with a large gorilla in a glass box who is later discovered to be his teacher, Ishmael. He discovers that by learning from this gorilla, he can learn two of the many important issues at stake within society, the Laws of Nature and the Population Paradox, both of which are discovered to be key factors in determining the survival of the human species and its cohabitants.

The first issue that is creating problems throughout its course in society comes from the concept of the Population Paradox, which is conveyed throughout the novel when Ishmael the gorilla states that, “in the natural community, whenever a population’s food supply increases, that population increases. As that population increases, its food supply decreases, and as its food supply decreases, that population decreases,” hence creating what is known as the Population Paradox (Quinn 137). In other words, if an individual decides to donate to a charity that helps end hunger amongst starving children in Africa, they may be unaware of the potential problems it creates rather than the solutions it solves. For starters, by donating to feed starving individuals, that given population will reproduce. Why? Well, it is because if an individual or group of individuals receives survival essentials to better their lives, they are going to attempt to repopulate to increase their group’s chances of survival. However with this in mind, problems are created. Instead of solving hunger within the community, increased hunger is gained. For example, consider a small rat population consisting of only six rats, all of whom are uneducated in the field of avoiding rat traps. Now say these rats are hungry for cheese and want to satisfy their hunger. Well, naturally these rats are going to sniff out the source of food and do what they can to obtain it. However, these rats are also unaware of the potential problems arising from obtaining the cheese because it is attached to what is known to the opposing human population as a rat trap. Now with this rat trap, the rats are theoretically going to be summoned by the desire for cheese and are going to step on it and die. In addition to this however, perhaps the rat population was an exotic breed that was on the brink of extinction. Now in order to prevent their extinction, the population would need to be fed so that they could sustain and possibly increase their chances for survival and thus be removed from the endangered species list. So perhaps a different human individual decides to feed them. He/She decides to help increase the rat populations odds of survival so that they can thrive and become a part of society once more but with one catch. If this human individual decides to feed the rat population, it will grow. It will build and grow its numbers to a species high until its food supply is depleted, eventually resulting in the same initial scenario. A rat population consisting of only six rats. In fact, this is almost comparable to a trampoline where an individual can jump on the trampoline over and over again but no matter what, because of the law of gravity, they will come back down. They may reach a new high score in terms of height from their jumps but they will always fall back down to their initial starting location because they are participating in what Albert Einstein would consider insanity. This is, as Einstein puts it, “doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Not changing any methods or variables to affect survival or jump height but rather expecting to survive and build their population or jump height through their lack of knowledge in how to better prepare is the reason as to why these events occur. An individual cannot feed an entire rat population or the starving community of Africa nor prevent themselves from falling to Earth via trampoline if they do not change. They must decide when enough is enough and come to the realization that despite their unfailing attempts to better their result, they will arrive at the exact conclusion every time. The same results will continuously occur if the subject does not alter their methods because as Albert Einstein’s quote above describes, that is insanity. Additionally, this is the main point the gorilla in “Ishmael” is attempting to convey. He believes that “when the population of any species outstrips its food resources, that population declines until it’s once again in balance with its resources,” while “Mother Culture (Human culture) says that humans should be exempt from that process, so when she finds a population that has oustripped its resources, she rushes in food from the outside, thus making it a certainty that there will be even more of them starving in the next generation” (Quinn 145). Henceforth creating a group of individuals who are forging a long-lasting impact on society through their insanity.

Accordingly, this is a method that despite its possible criticism from other members of society could initiate change for the better, as suggested by Ishmael the gorilla on page 149. In regards to the Population Paradox and how to limit its growth, Ishmael the gorilla tells a story in relation to the Native American tribes. “If the Navajo started feeling crowded, they couldn’t say to themselves, ‘Well, the Hopi have a lot of wide open space. Let’s go over there and be a Hopi.’ However, “New Yorkers can solve their population problems by becoming Arizonans, but the Navajo couldn’t solve their population problems by becoming Hopi” (Quinn 149). It was because of the territorial boundaries that made tribes plan whether or not they could increase their population based on the amount of land they possessed. For example, if a Navajo decided one day that he wanted to become a Hopi, it would not be possible because upon entry into the new territory, he would be shot and killed. Thus in turn, limiting population growth. Unfortunately however, this is not case in present day because if an individual wants to make a family but does not have enough space in their territory, they can move to another location for accommodation. In accordance however, this method could also help the rat population or the individual jumping on the trampoline as it could show them better ways of keeping their methods and ways of survival intact through a higher education. For example, instead of feeding the rat population and expecting them to survive with an inevitable lack in resources, they could instead educate themselves on how to avoid the rat traps. They could learn how to avoid them which would increase their chances of survival, much like the individual jumping on the trampoline. Rather than resembling Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity, these subjects could instead utilize alternative ways to obtain new heights, such as better shoes or decoys for their cheese because it would result in a much better outcome for all parties. Furthermore, according to my personal beliefs, I think Ishmael has a point.

Pursuant to my belief system, I believe in Ishmael’s theory of the Population Paradox. I believe that Ishmael was absolutely correct in this theory for I also believe that by donating food to starving individuals or countries, the problems only strengthen. As explained through the rat population and trampoline examples, if those who are starving are doing the same activity over and over again with an expectation of a different result, they may be considered insane, per Albert Einstein. In addition, I also believe that the concept itself, Population Paradox, also explains a significant portion of what is at stake in society because by feeding the starving children or rat population the issue is not fixed. Instead, it is only made greater for those starving individuals as they will only take the food as a short-term fix. A fix that will not ensure the survival of their species for a long duration but would rather be method to increase reproduction. For one, as mentioned in earlier paragraphs, individuals would only increase their population to the point where they would inevitably expire their resources and begin to diminish once again. They would not be able to support themselves and would in turn, begin to fall back to the place they once were. Starving. Hence the reason I believe Population Paradox is an excellent use of terminology for the activity because it goes full circle. Unfortunately however, this is not in regards to the Laws of Nature.

Secondly, The Laws of Nature plays as much as an important role within society as does the Population Paradox. In fact, according to Ishmael the gorilla, there is an excellent story involving the characters of the A’s, B’s, and C’s. In this story, these characters are all members of a society that is able to function because of the way in which they follow the Laws of Nature. This way is that, as stated in the novel, “The A’s are eaten by the B’s and the B’s are eaten by the C’s and the C’s in turn are eaten by the A’s” (Quinn 120). Ways that allow the members to function in a way to limit population growth while obeying the Laws of Nature. Though when asked how these individuals could live in such a way to know that they would one day be killed, they responded that it was “the foundation of our success as a people and has been so from the beginning” (Quinn 120). Furthermore, it was the way of life for these individuals because it was all they knew and all they had experienced. They were accustomed to moving along the food chain and knowing that one day they could be killed and eaten by another group because it was how it had always been. It was the way they learned so it was the way they knew. In fact, another example can be found on pages 123-124 of the novel when Ishmael the gorilla henceforth discusses the similarities between the lives of the A’s, B’s, and C’s with a lion and gazelle. “The lion that comes across a herd of gazelles doesn’t massacre them, as an enemy would. It kills one, not to satisfy its hatred of gazelles but to satisfy its hunger, and once it has made its kill the gazelles are perfectly content to go on grazing with the lion right in their midst” (Quinn 123-124). The gazelle is perfectly content with living its life near the lion who just killed another gazelle because it is the only life the gazelle knows. It does not know to run away or to fight back for it was the “foundation of [their] people and has been so from the beginning” (Quinn 120). However, in the minds of the Takers, the lions and gazelles, as well as the A’s, B’s, and C’s, are considered enemies. They are considered the negativity in the world because they take up space and are influencing the Takers ability to monopolize the planet. “The gazelle and the lion are enemies only in the minds of the Takers (Quinn 123-124). Thus in turn, this has become the reality of the Laws of Nature. Animals do not kill one another for sport, like the human Takers, but rather kill because they are hungry. They do not store their food in grocery stores and take away the resources for other species, nor do they eliminate all of their competition, just the one to satisfy their hunger. Unfortunately however, the Takers do and much of it is discussed via the narrator’s three sub-laws within the Laws of Nature.

The first sub-law the narrator discusses, found on page 132, is that “[Takers] exterminate their competitors.” They kill those who pose as a threat and attempt to eliminate them to gain more control. It is an activity that does not occur in the wild for “in the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors’ territories and preempt their kills but they will never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat” (Quinn 132). In other words, the Takers will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals, even if it means threatening the Laws of Nature or a certain species. The second sub-law is that, “the Takers systematically destroy their competitors’ food to make room for their own,” whereas in the wild, the rule is “take what you need, and leave the rest alone” (Quinn 133). It is a rule that the Takers refuse to follow because they believe whatever is in existence is theirs for the taking. Finally, the third sub-law amongst the Laws of Nature is that, “the Takers deny their competitors access to food,” unlike the wild where the rule is, “you may deny your competitors access to what you’re eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general” (Quinn 133). An example of which includes being allowed to say “This gazelle is mine,” but not “all gazelles are mine,” for it would scramble the balance in the food chain (Quinn 133). Though, the Takers also refuse to accept this rule because once again, if it exists, it is theirs for the taking. A rule many Takers have followed that has cast a negative light upon them. However, when these three laws are combined it is known as the “peace-keeping law,” for which its intended purpose is to promote order and diversity amongst all living creatures as well as establish a balance between predator and prey (Quinn 135). Correspondingly however, this law has also made an impact on society.

Subsequently, because the human species feels the need to become Takers and do whatever they please without the fear for the repercussions, society may crumble. It may falter or become abolished because of the way in which humanity has decided to dictate the Laws of Nature through the building of grocery stores, power plants, excess hunting, and whaling for everyday purposes such obtaining as meat, oil, and blubber. Regardless, these were all ways in which man was to reign. Conquer or be conquered. Even according to Ishmael, “the world was made for man, and man was made to rule it” (Quinn 76). Unfortunately however, man became greedy with this power. Man decided that it was time for him to rule and conquer the world and to have it bow before him in all tasks, but with one slight problem. The world fought back. “What man built up, the wind and rain tore down. The fields he cleared for his crops and his villages, the jungle fought to reclaim. The seed he sowed, the birds snatched away. The shoots he nurtured, the insects nibbled. The harvest he stored, the mice plundered. The animals he bred and fed, the wolves and foxes stole away…. The earthquake, the flood, the hurricane, the blizzard, and the drought would not disappear at his command” (Quinn 77-78). All of which was considered competition for man to conquer that eventually made him pay the price for “enacting a story that cast mankind as the enemy of the world” (Quinn 80). The enemy the world wanted to see destroyed because of all the chaos and terror it had caused.

Individualistically, I believe mankind deserves the title, “enemy of the world” because for centuries, we have taken, destroyed, and crippled anything and everything that has ever stood in our way. We have not taken into account the habitats nor survivability rates of the many creatures affected through this destruction and have only thought about the survival rates of our own species. Ironically however, if we are to “rule and conquer” the world like discussed in Ishmael, we must not care for only ourselves but for other species as well. We must decide when we no longer wish to destroy the world because if we continue on our current path, we will become extinct. We will die and it will be our fault. Nevertheless, I believe that in order for us to prevent our extinction from occurring, we must first acknowledge our selfish problem. The problem that perhaps we do not need to continuously take and take whatever we desire because it could potentially result in negative outcomes, as explained through the rat population story. I also believe that we cannot continue destroying habitats and biospheres because without Earth’s animals, human life would be severely crippled. For example according to Ben Kerns of thedodo.com, we need the following animals and their abilities. “Honeybees for plant growth and pollination, Bats for keeping the creepy crawlers from taking over, Plankton for converting energy into oxygen and distributing it around the world, Primates for acting as the forests’ gardeners by dispersing seeds and pollen throughout their daily routines to help sustain life on Earth, and last but not least, Butterflies for helping humans understand climate change” (Kerns). The way I see it, if we want to rule and conquer the world, we must first begin to follow the Laws of Nature so that we may take our place as honorable Kings and Queens residing at the top of our Animal Kingdom.

Overall, the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn was a book of entertaining thought. It was a book that raised many questions and presented them through the use of educated responses via both Ishmael himself, as well as the narrator and was a book that I would personally, highly recommend. It was a book that made me think both critically and analytically as it challenged my initial way of thought and made me question the reality of why I believe the way I do. Why I donate to charity without first considering the actual impact it may have amongst population paradox or even why I constantly take without any concern for the Law of Nature. However, Ishmael was undoubtedly one of the best books to read as it challenged the reader to think on his/her own. Instead of telling the reader what to do and how to live in the best manner, it summoned its audience to take educated actions and make evidence-based decisions after careful analyses and thought. Additionally, the narrator acted as an excellent mantlepiece for he was a relatable individual who, despite his ignorance on some topics, did his best to analyze and further learn important information from his teacher that would help him in his future endeavors. Although the narrator did not know the answer to some of Ishmael’s questions, it did not inhibit him from making an attempt because he was able to take the evidence and information he had gathered, or not gathered in some cases, and do with it, the best he could. He did not give up when he was faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles but was rather willing to learn how to overcome them. He was willing to learn about the Population Paradox and the Laws of Nature because he felt it his necessary duty and obligation to make a change and do what he could to address potential problems within the realm of nature. Moreover, the narrator was able to eventually come to the conclusion that in order to make a change and begin to solve the world’s many issues, one must first acknowledge the presence of them, for it is key in determining the survival of not only one species but all species amongst our Animal Kingdom.

Works Cited

Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael. Bantam Books, 2017.

Kerns, Ben. “5 Animals Humans Need For Survival.” 5 Animals Humans Need For Survival, The Dodo, 23 Aug. 2014, www.thedodo.com/fellows-pitch-6-animals-the-wo-686089396.html.