An Inconvenient Box (that we live in)

              You've all probably seen some melodramatic climate change documentary or presentation, if not Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.  Chances are you've all felt that rush of motivation and activism that comes alongside the dramatized images of polar bears and rescue efforts. Unfortunately in real life there isn't a full orchestral ensemble and a news crew commissioned to commemorate every effort you put forth to "save the planet." Your "recycling" and "carpooling" efforts won't yield tangible results any time soon and seldom, if ever, will you receive recognition  from others so its hard understandably hard to stay the course right? I argue that the reason many of us are unable to prolong our environmental consciousnesses is not because our journeys are not romanticized [glorified] but rather because its difficult to envision the the world to be anything different than it is right now. We struggle with the scale of the concept that we can actually have an affect on the direction of this planet.

[Al Gore's presentation An Inconvenient Truth, was received with significant indifference]

What Ishmael does so well, and why i believe it to be an effective narrative, is allow me to see that our reality is not the singular possibility. Many spiritual ideologies assert existential explanations for questions without answers and often can do no better than, "This is the way it is," or "This is how god willed it." Now eventually this creates the sentiment that our world is the way it is for a reason, independent of our daily to day manipulations and influences.Barring telepathic gorrilaz,  Ishmael is most likely one of the most unique books I've ever read, in that the message and ultimate take away of the book is not a moral or a message but a conversation. Daniel Quinn wrote Ishmael in an attempt to encourage and incite controversy, to bring about questions and start an on going dialogue.  Allen Downey, author of Ten things I hate about the first have of Ishmael, states in his 9th and 10th grievances that the book [and author] completely ignore any empirical evidence and uses blind assumptions as fact. This he argues is why the book[first half] is ineffective for him. I like to think the complete lack of quantitative values, empirical conclusions leaves room for the reader to believe the world is anything we make it to be; not a bunch of symbols and numbers.