Continuing the Taker-Leaver Discussion from the last post.
In his books, Daniel Quinn continues this dialogue much further, but the point being made is that the Taker mindset is now part of a society that produces excess food and of many kinds, so that no one has to be disappointed with their choice of food at any time. If the Leaver goes hunting for deer and finds only rabbits, then that is OK with them. But if a Taker wants beef then they will make breed plenty of cows to ensure they have beef whenever they want it. We have made industries out of agriculture, and expanded that industry further to produce food that only serves human needs, which eventually created the chemical pesticide industry to ensure only humans got to eat that food (this includes feed lots and pets).
But that isn’t the innovation that produced the competitive, exploitive and scarcity worldview of our modern world. At the dawn of agriculture, there were undoubtedly Leaver communities that hunted and gathered food as they had always done. There were Leaver communities that settled in areas where farming was conducive to good drop yields every year. I’m sure there was plenty of trade in food stuffs as nomads and farmers exchanged farmed crops for hunted animals. Yet as time went on, the farmers found that animal husbandry and crop hybridization started to give them excessive yields. So, instead of storing food until the next harvest season, they needed to store it longer term.
Hunter gathering in an area without too many humans would allow a leisurely lifestyle (I’ve seen estimates of 2 days a week needed to provide food for the week). Farming takes a lot of continuous work to keep weeds at bay. And where mainstream science tells us that farming began (the Tigris and Euphrates valleys) they also maintained extensive irrigation systems to keep the crops watered. This probably set up the first part of the Taker revolution – producing food through irrigation in an area that was relatively barren before give them a sense of superiority over the natural world. An early inscription by Queen Semiramis (Sammuramat) of Assyria emphasizes this nicely, “I constrained the mighty river to flow according to my will and let its water to fertilize lands that had been barren and without inhabitants.”
Now imagine drought years in the early part of the agricultural revolution. The nomadic peoples would move further afield to find food, but the farming communities were stuck where they were. Both might have suffered starvation to some degree. However, the Leavers shared whatever they found and thrived. The Takers were hungry as well. And it was here that the second part of the Taker innovation probably occurred after a drought ridden, poor yield year.
When the next good harvest was collected and stored, I’m sure the community recognized the problems of drought and food shortages. Now hungry people are not rational people. When there’s stored food to be had and one’s belly is aching, rationing can work, but only with a firm leader to maintain order. This would be tolerable if food equity was practiced. But if the drought situation was repeated, then firm leadership would become stringent and harsh to maintain order, and to ensure that farmers kept farming (remember – continuous hard work) and not running off to join some nomadic Leaver tribe.
The harsh leaders would need good warriors on their side to enforce order. And this is the crux of the Taker mindset. The great revolution was to lock up and guard the food – A bureaucracy was born! (A system of governance in which most of the important decisions are made by unelected officials that justify their own existence.) A strong leader with good propaganda skills and a strong group of warriors backing him (and yes, it was probably the start of the patriarchal system) could train his offspring to follow his leadership. And then over a few generations, you have the start of a generational hierarchy with the people accepting it since they had no other choice – complete indoctrination of the Taker worldview was established. Before long, it would become the normal Taker worldview and any thoughts of leaving the Taker system disappeared as Leavers were despised as inferiors and primitives.
It is interesting that throughout modern history (last thousand years), more technological societies (mostly from Christian Europe) made it a ‘holy’ point to convert the Leavers to a Taker lifestyle. The Takers were convinced that the Leaver way of life is ‘wretched and wrong!’ Even today, the Taker worldview we hold so dear despises ‘primitive cultures and views them are curiosities. The Taker worldview has many other failings, especially our belief that we are in control of the natural world. But obviously many things aren’t in our control as the myriad ecological problems emphasize.
As a side note, I find it interesting that Leaver cultures don’t force anyone to live their way or make themselves the rulers of the world. This emphasizes the main difference between the Leaver and Taker worldview. The Leaver story: Humans belong to the world – nurturers or stewards living abundant and collaborative lives. The Taker story – creates more food than needed and have hierarchical rulers dictate our lives. This has created a cultural prison for us. In a prison, the prison industry keeps the inmates minds off the boredom and futility of their lives. Who runs the show inside a prison – the inmates! Our cultural prison has ultimately created a exploitive-consumer worldview and despite excess food production, hasn’t made people feel secure. This is especially so since scarcity and competition drive our lives. Even when we have abundance we are plagued with fear and lack. A relatively modern innovation to the Taker story was to add money as the item that provided security, and then control it so tightly that it created a scarcity far beyond merely trying to get food to live.
The solution to the Taker story is not simple redistribution of resources. The solution is to get rid of the Taker cultural prison. We can use the Leaver story to help us understand the path we need to take now. The answer lies in understanding how the Takers probably ended up accepting the cultural prison in the first place, and then defending it with almost holy reverence? While Leaver cultures may not have ‘money,’ one thing most anthropological research notes is that they feel ‘wealthy’ – that is they have a continuous sense of well-being. Leaver wealth cannot be given by ‘leaders.’ Someone new in charge is not the answer. Taker ways work well for business within a money driven paradigm but not for people in general (except the top few).
When ancient civilizations failed the Taker society survivors could always go back and join Leaver cultures. Today there are too many people. Takers can no longer return to good olde days of ‘imagined simplicity’ – there is no back anymore. So, we must move forward. We must give everyone something ’better’ than things (stuff) and the Taker mindset. Let’s ponder the bars of the Taker cultural prison a little more.
To Be Continued ………..
0 Comments