Ishmael: Source Distribution-Takers and Leaver –

The difference in culture between primal and technological societies is vast. A generalization of these differences is illuminated in Ishmael through source distribution between the Takers (technological society) and the Leavers (primal society). The Takers are primarily symbolic of literate culture, while the Leavers are primarily symbolic of oral culture.
The main difference the book notes between the two cultures is their use of source distribution. It claims that more sources are used by the Takers. This is because they take everything they possibly can and leave nothing behind, hence the name. The Takers not only obtain what they need but, they also take surplus that at many times is unnecessary. In this way they leave nothing for the other plants or animals, and express a very self-centered point of view. This desire for surplus leads the Takers to dismantle as much of their competition as possible. This creates destruction of nature around them killing of competitive species, plants as well as animals.
The Leavers on the other hand can not understand the idea/concept of surplus. They see no point or purpose to having a surplus supply, and can not fathom how this could be of any assistance to them at all. They take just what they need form nature at a given time and leave the rest; having faith that the supply will be there next time it is needed. This modest use of sources allows for a much more harmonious relationship with nature. In leaving resources for other species the leavers do not snuff out any animals or plants. By not practicing the technique of surplus they are able to let other organisms flourish alongside themselves in peace.
The book does not specifically declare Leavers as only oral or Takers as only literate cultures. However, it can be noted that in looking at oral and literate cultures they primarily symbolize the terms Leavers and Takers (respectively) as they relate to the culture practices of these two forms of society. In looking at this it raises the question: Is the mode of communication in a society determinant of how that society views nature (i.e. views the taking and using of supplies)?