Tweet

Reconstruction Vol. 13, No. 3/4

Return to Contents»

A “Survivalist” Reads Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower / James H. Clinton

Survival

<1> I have a friend who says that he is not a “one issue” voter. I am, and the issue is survival. Those of us who have grown up in affluent America, I think, tend to take survival for granted. We concern ourselves with other issues, such as “fairness.”

<2> Having studied, and practiced wilderness survival to some degree, I found reading Parable of the Sower to be an interesting exercise. As I walked my dog shortly after finishing reading Parable, I looked around to see what edibles might be available if I had to forsake all in terms of modern conveniences, like young Lauren Olamina after the destruction of the walled community in which she lived.

<3> It was in October in East Tennessee. There were black walnuts, acorns, and, of course the squirrels, if you know how to catch them, Honey Locust pods, Day Lily tubers (if you can recognize the plant after their flowering season), cattails (roots), dandelions (roots and greens), watercress, violets (leaves), dock, other assorted greens even in Fall, and there were still grasshoppers and crickets, if you can catch them (without expending too many calories), and there are earthworms and grubs. Disgusting? Not if survival is on the line, and you are a one issue voter.

<4> And, there are some medicinal plants such as willow (inner bark contains salicylic acid, that is, aspirin), and jewel weed (touch-me-not) an effective anti-poison-ivy device with anti-fungicidal properties.

<5> And, if survivalism was required, like Lauren, there would be an immediate assessing and accessing what resources were available, and needed, and what was and what was not essential. Like Lauren, it would be expedient to have a “kit,” immediately available. And, like Lauren, you would need to assess as much as possible the type of situation in which you will be trying to survive. Is wilderness the setting (no or few modern conveniences), or will you have to defend your life from individuals who would take your resources, or your body, or who would, because of their ideology, merely seek to kill you.

<6> Lauren had a plan. Lauren had a direction. Lauren had accumulated some knowledge about survival. Lauren had a kit (p. 80).

<7> But before the journey, to Northern California, and to the Earthseed philosophy/religion, her eventual “direction” which assisted her survival, she and her community were already living in a survival situation in her walled compound. That community was destroyed, which speaks to the major two statements or “direction” of Earthseed, “God is Change,” (pp. 3, 17, 25, 79, 116) and “Learn or die” (p. 279). The ultimate change, or possible ‘direction,” would be one where there were no conveniences, and wilderness survival would be the setting (see Tom Brown’s Field Guide to Wilderness Survival by Tom Brown).

<8> One step up from a “no modern conveniences” situation would be to have very basic survival gear similar to the major items in Lauren’s kit (p. 80). Specifically, cutting instruments (knife, hatchet), metal pots (hard to purify water without a metal pot, but it can be done), and matches are a considerable help. You will use up your matches, so one should learn, by experience, how to make fire by friction, one of the truly natural methods of fire building. In addition, a magnesium fire starter is good for about 1,000 fires, and a magnifying glass is good for as long as you do not break it, melt or scratch it if it is plastic or it deteriorates, or lose it, as long as the sun shines. Hypothermia is one of the most frequent killers in the wilderness, so shelter (natural or a poncho) is the number one item for most of us, and the means and/or knowledge about how to obtain pure water, naturally, being number two. And, as noted before, one of the most important items carried (in her mind) by Lauren was the information on survival (and guns) she had learned from reading her father’s books on that topic and the training, though incomplete, from her father (pp. 56-60) . Eventually, you may lose everything, so some thought and practice is in order to be able to use sharp rocks for cutting tools, make fire naturally, and obtain shelter and clothing (do you know natural sources of fiber, or how to tan a skin?). In the wilderness, you are more likely to die from bacteria than from a bear bite or a mad man (a “paint” in Parable) or a desperate man. So, again, how to purify water and properly prepare food and how to cleanse (at least, small) wounds are essential. In the short run the goal is merely to stay alive, and reasonably healthy. In the long run, if you have a long run, the goal would be to stay alive, procreate, and teach your progeny to care for themselves in whatever the situation is or might be.

<9> In brief, survival is a tall order, and it is, fortunately or unfortunately, something most of us, especially the youth, in the USA, have not had to seriously consider. The closest we might come to appreciating what we have in the USA is if a family member is lost in combat, or a devastating disease confronts us. The USA isn’t perfect, but there are more immigrants than emigrants. While the entire scenario presented in Parable of the Sower may not be entirely realistic, it is sufficiently realistic to cause those “who have ears to hear” to take note and consider reality or possible future reality and consider and appreciate what we have and consider how to preserve, perhaps improve, and protect what has been provided to us, or be prepared to survive in a very, very different situation, in a wilderness or in a situation where your freedom is completely removed by those who would only use or abuse you. The latter two choices seem stark, and it may remind one of the desperate choice, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” Most of us (except for military personnel) have not had to consider that lately; perhaps it is time, or perhaps subservience and the philosophy, “Where there is life there is hope,” might be preferred. The choice is individual, and Lauren had to consider whom to trust based on her particular philosophy, and goal of freedom.

<10> In the wilderness there may be no “paints” who will try to take your resources (and kill you). Part of Lauren’s effort was to avoid the “paints,” the killers, and in that she was successful. After arriving in Northern California, and the avoidance of potential killers during the journey was over, and settlement was the issue (as per the sequel, Parable of the Talents), avoidance would then no longer be possible. In the case of a settlement, a walled compound, there is another survival issue. The issue is that it is not enough to only have a defense; you need to be strong enough to have an offense. If all you have is a defense, and people are determined to kill you, you will eventually lose, as the walled compound in Parable of the Sower was lost.

<11> There are, in this world, people who want to kill you or are willing to kill you or to abuse you to further their personal goals. One example of one such group of people was illustrated in 9/11. The 911 Commission concluded that “the radical _______ can not be reasoned with. They must be either isolated, or eliminated.” In Parable of the Sower Lauren, and her group isolated themselves as much as possible from killers, and when necessary, eliminated them. They did what they had to do commensurate with their resources. This is in essence the philosophy of Earthseed, specifically, “do whatever it takes to survive.” This is also the philosophy of a survivalist. What does not contribute to that must be either isolated or eliminated, as much as possible. Once survival is assured, or reasonably assured, charity may then be considered, but up to that point a full assessment of what, and who, can help, or hinder, is the only issue. Who can help? To some that will include a religious issue. In Earthseed, the only personal immediate help would be those who would share the goal of survival, and in the setting in Parable of the Sower, there would be strength in numbers, so the survival group grew as the situation allowed. Lauren did exercise charity, but that charity was balanced on the thin edge of survival.

<12> “Do whatever it takes to survive.” This is what the survivalist dreams about. The dreams are not pleasant. For a significant number of survivalists, self defense by firepower is a considerable part of that dream.

<13> In some respects a dream including firepower may not be realistic (though I would want firepower, anyway). If the US really got to the point described in Parable of the Sower, there are at least three other political/ideological powers in the world which, I believe, would invade the US, and probably be successful in becoming the controlling power. Then the choice would be either to seek wilderness and hiding, or servitude. Or, if there was sufficient freedom, resource, and communication, there may be thought to confrontation, as in the founding of this country. Any of these choices seem absolutely miserable to me. I would rather defend what we have now and preempt such a situation if possible. That is a major reason I personally work in the defense industry. I do not appreciate the industry’s excesses, but I really do appreciate what we presently have and I appreciate the relative freedom that we have. Some real survival training and its associated hardships, or serious thought and consideration of Parable of the Sower, or a consideration of the systems under which a lot of this world lives, may help engender an appreciation for our present setting.

<14> And, what is our present “setting?” Our country was founded as a constitutional republic. One major aspect of our particular constitutional republic is that minorities have protection. Unless the public is clearly at risk, minorities have freedom to believe and practice what they wish. That seems to be presently changing, but at this juncture it is still largely true. Such freedom is not true in major parts of the world, and particularly in parts which would do us harm. A scientist from one country observed, “In our country we can criticize Darwin, but we can’t criticize our government. In your country you can criticize the government [that is changing], but you can’t criticize Darwin.” Should one particular ideology overcome us, you would criticize at the risk of your life. The choice would be agreement (or silent subservience), a heavy tax and silence if not in agreement with the ideology, flight if possible (to wilderness or another country more in line with your orientation), or death. I don’t like any of those choices, the other choice being resistance, which as noted in the sequel to Parable of the Sower, Parable of the Talents, is to possibly risk all. Parable of the Sower should motivate the reader to seriously consider the present situation and direction and choices now and possibly in the future under different scenarios.

<15> Presently we have a considerable degree of freedom. The fear of survivalists is that their own government will seek to control every aspect of their lives with specifics a lot of survivalists would wish to refuse. They would seek to “hold on,” to survive, like Lauren’s father, until that government was changed to something more like the constitutional republic we have experienced for the last 200 years. Very few, ineffectively few, I believe, would attempt to force such a change by armed intervention. So, if the survivalist, he thinks, can “keep his head down” long enough, and not be apprehended for not “fitting in” to the demands of a particular government, and the government was changed by some act of God (your definition), it might work for them.

<16> Could the survivalist survive in his armed dwelling? If the sort of situation described in Parable occurred, people would learn, or already know, who had resources, and if the people could group, and could amass more strategic firepower than the survivalist, or the survivalists in a compound, the survivalist(s) would not survive, and their resources would be taken. Lauren’s walled compound did not survive. They did not have sufficient firepower, sufficient “intelligence” (to know what was coming or possible), sufficient surveillance around the compound, or sufficient offensive capability or the understanding that it should be used to preempt the destruction of their compound and most of their lives. While I would do what I could to survive, the outcome in an armed personal dwelling, I think, would be highly questionable.

<17> If we want to really survive, we need a country, not just a compound or a hidden place in the wilderness. This is why I believe in a strong America. This is what I think that anyone who seriously contemplates survival would conclude, and Parable of the Sower, as the fortunes and decisions of Lauren Olamina are followed, will be a good starting point.

<18> How many rounds of ammunition can you store in your personal fort? How many rounds of ammunition can you carry? Can your one gun out-fire ten guns aimed at you? You can’t even grow a garden without stability, or anonymity. We need a nation.

<19> As for the dream of populating the stars, it takes a nation. It takes a nation to develop and to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon if needed. It takes a nation, a strong nation, a secure nation to even consider serious space travel. And, we are presently going to have to look further in space than we have looked. The present planets discovered around distant stars to this point cannot support life due to, if nothing else, the eccentricity of their orbits. Or perhaps the massive technology to change a planet, or its orbit, or its location might be someday available, but, again, I think, it would take a very strong, secure nation to develop, much less implement such a strategy. Some feel the evidence that there are not presently highly advanced beings in space is that such a rearrangement of planets, stars, even galaxies has not been detected. After some time, beings on a planet will have to perform such technological miracles, or die. If there is such a future hope, I would say that we had better be concerned about our stability, our defensibility, and our offensive (nuclear) capability, which we, by the way, hope we never have to use. (Which would you prefer – nuclear capability or to fight another large nation man to man?) We hope we don’t need it, but if we need it, we will use it, or die. Neither choice is a happy choice, but, as a survivalist, as one who feels affinity with Lauren Olamina, I would prefer to make the choice to survive.

Earthseed

<20> In considering survival, the religious aspect will inevitably be considered. Lauren Olamina considered it, and her basic conclusion was that there was no outside help. We are told that she rejected the religion of her Baptist father but there is no elaboration on precisely what it was that she rejected or why. Lauren’s rejection may also mirror the conclusion of the author of the Parable of he Sower, but that is another topic and consideration. Lauren’s conclusion seems, at first glance, atheistic. However, I would prefer to place her in agnosticism since I do not know what she rejected. In Parable there is no serious discussion of the relevant issues, nor is there in the epilogue of the book. There are no Richard Dawkins’ types of discussions, but only the conclusion that there is no detectable help from an outside source. The only “god” of consideration is “change,” or more accurately, I think, stated, “learn or die.” A superior being’s presence or lack of presence is, as far as Lauren can tell, is irrelevant if the being is not involved in her survival. This is understandable.

<21> Some see elements of Buddhism and Christianity in Earthseed, Earthseed being summarized in the statements “God is Change,” and “Learn or die.” The Buddhism that Buddha taught was, while not atheistic, was agnostic. About life after death, and supernatural things, Buddha simply said that he did not know (his answer to such questions being silence along with the statement “Consider what I have told you to be known and what I have not told you to be unknown”). At least, the supernatural was unknown to Buddha. He was agnostic. After Buddha died people flooded “Buddhism” with their own concepts about god and life after death into “Buddhism,” even considering Buddha to have been, or to be, “God.” So, there is a similarity between Earthseed and the Buddhism that Buddha taught, namely agnosticism, but there is no similarity with the variations of Buddhism which included elements of the supernatural. Also, apparently, the political/cultural setting in India at the time of Buddha offered no (human) physical threat to Buddha, and there is no indication that violence or the need for self protection was an issue, or certainly not the consideration that killing another might be necessary for survival. Except for agnosticism, I see, then, little similarity between Earthseed and Buddhism since Earthseed is about survival and recognizing and avoiding pain through action while Buddhism is more about learning to ignore pain by eliminating your desire.

<22> Since Christianity (along with Judaism and Islam in the West) purports to reveal the god who created the universe and can and does interact with the sentient created beings, there is a major irreconcilable disconnect between Western “Religions of the Book” and Earthseed. Aside from Earthseed’s statement, “God is Change,” the survival aspect of Earthseed is not incompatible with Western religion. In Lauren’s abandoned Christianity, as in Earthseed, survival IS the main issue. The difference in Earthseed and Christianity is whether there is a supernatural (also, sentient) entity who is interested in our survival, or whether there is a larger plan by the supernatural being which involves our survival, but is not the only consideration of the supernatural being. Your answer to the question, “Is there a supernatural being who is interested in our survival,” will have a significant effect on how one prepares to survive.

<23> The Christian will prepare for earthly survival, but he will be aware that there is a larger plan which may or may not include his earthly survival. What is assured to the Christian is that his earthly death, if that is what is planned by the supernatural being, will be used to further the larger plan of the supernatural being, and that it will result in good (as defined by the supernatural being) concerning the larger plan, and, absolutely significantly, will result in good for the individual. That is a massive and positive realization (conviction/persuasion). This takes away a great deal of the fear that one might not survive this life. Death need not be feared.

<24> I would say that similarities between Earthseed and Buddhism and Christianity are superficial in terms of doctrine, but maybe not in other terms.

<25> As Earthseed’s “larger picture” is a vague sense of responsibility to the world around one, particularly the so-called natural world, it suggests a certain metaphysics based upon harmony. So, despite Lauren’s rejection of traditional religion, the existence of Earthseed begs the question of whether metaphysical belief as such is helpful or even necessary when it comes to the “survival instinct.” One needs a reason to survive, and the prevalence of suicide amongst the human race reminds of us of this need or, to paraphrase Freud, he will fall ill or worse.

Politics

<26> In Parable of the Sower, everyone is required to contribute to the survival of the group, even the children who are able and are seen as becoming future members of the cooperating community. Implicit if not explicit agreement is required in the essence of the survival aspect of Earthseed.

<27> Wouldn’t it be interesting if everyone in America considered the survival of America as the primary goal, and more minor political issues than survival as secondary? I do not think that is where we are in America. And I believe that it is because we do not recognize the peril which may possibly come without a commitment to our survival. I would hope that literature like Parable of the Sower would lead to that commitment.

The Real Questions Asked in Parable

<28> What is your core belief? Your answer to this question will massively affect your response to the issue of survival.

<29> What is your perspective on “reality”? Is there a purpose?

<30> Is there a supernatural being who can, or is willing, to assist you. Or, is that even the right question at all?

Return to Top»

ISSN: 1547-4348. All material contained within this site is copyrighted by the identified author. If no author is identified in relation to content, that content is © Reconstruction, 2002-2016.