The Dharmic Method to Save the Planet

In order to truly work towards protecting the environment/planet we have to realize that humans are no more special than the lowliest of Animals and plants. The species-centric(human centric) worldview we take for granted blinds us to the fates of the other beings which inhibit the world and have as much rights to it as we do. Unless we look at it from a detached viewpoint that transcends petty limitations..including that of species we will not be able to truly work towards a world that is both sustainable as well as viable to not only humans but to every other being.

Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism are not religions in the Abrahamic sense..however people erroneously translate them as 'religions" in English.

For example..Dharma does not need gods/deity at all..like Karma its something that is beyond/transcends gods. As you are aware, there are many atheistic schools of thought/philosophies in the Dharmic traditions(Hinduism, Buddhism , Jainism) and they have a monistic(not monotheistic)/nondualist philosophy that posits the underlying one-ness(or to be more exact, "not-two-ness") of all things in this universe. The need to protect/preserve the earth/environment is but a logical result of this worldview.

Well, not exactly. We are the only species that can specifically protect just about any other - in addition to being the only one that could destroy a whole lot of them too. And we are clearly the species that is affecting the earth's environment more than any other.

But I made that statement in the light of the usual thinking prevalent in many ideologies where humans are held to be "special' and that the rest of the world/beings that inhibit it are to serve his needs.

If a building is on fire, and I only have time to save either a human child or a cobra, I'm obviously going to save the child. I'll save the child over a dozen or a hundred or ten thousand cobras. I doubt many people would hesitate over such a decision, and I see not the slightest shame in that.

Species self-interest is hardly unique to humanity. Not that the OP explicitly says this, but it does bring to mind a very tiresome old narrative where non-human forms of life are depicted as somehow being purer or wiser or kinder or more "in tune with nature" than terrible, wicked, selfish humans. The only real difference between humans and other life when it comes to species self-interest, however, is that we humans simply have a great capacity to cause deliberate or inadvertent harm while pursuing our self-interest, and a not-always-employed capacity to see figure out that what we think will be in our self-interest might be shortsighted.

I certainly believe in using and developing our human capacity to appreciate and value other forms of life such that we don't cause pointless destruction and needless suffering. I believe in protecting the environment not just because protecting the environment is good for human beings, but for the benefit of non-human life as well. I don't and won't go as far, however, as equating humans to slugs and daffodils as somehow equally valuable or having equal "rights" to live.

Anyone who would take flowery spiritual and environmental rhetoric about such equivalencies completely to heart, and would actually act on those supposed equivalencies in real life, truly treating people and lobsters and patches of moss as equally important, would quickly veer into a kind of sociopathic behavior.

:thumbsup:

I was not exactly talking along those lines. I guess my post was not clear enough, my apologies. I was not implying that I would choose a cobra over a human to save from a burning building, nor was I implying that other forms of life are purer and wiser.


What I was intending to say is that Humans have to let go of the "entitlement" mindset when it comes to Earth and the other beings that inhibit it. We humans take a lot of things for granted. We hardly think twice about many of these assumptions..for the simple reason that its always about the "other" (in this case, Animals, the plants etc).


Last week there was an incident closer to where I live which involved a mountain lion. Apparently a mountain lion was seen in a hiking trail and it was big news...a few days later a mountain lion(probably the same one) had wandered over into the parking lot of some company and was shot by the law enforcement when it resisted capture(how can a mountain lion "resist capture"..it probably tries to run away). A lot of people breathed a collective sign of relief. I was quite troubled by this attitude. Not because I would rather that the mountain lion attack a human..nope..but about the mere assumption that mountain lion where humans live is bad/had to be killed.


How many people think about the reason why the mountain lion was in the parking lot of the company? Little do they realize that this area was once the natural habitat of the mountain lion...and as the suburbs grow and grow..its natural habitat is encroached upon by humans, who give two hoots about the ecosystems they are destroying. Hiking trails are built into wooded areas where the mountain lions, the coyotes and the deer used to roam for centuries.....the animals/sustenance they relied upon for their livelihood is gone/extremely scarce...hunger often pushes these otherwise normal animals to venture into built-up areas...areas which were once theirs. What do they get in return? a bullet into their back.


Coyotes raid the garbage? is it because they love our garbage? nope..only because their other forms of food are gone/almost extinct..and these once free animals have been reduced to raiding the garbage..and getting shot for it. The overwhelming majority of humans(not all) simply look at these animals as pests/danger..little do they think. If they ask questions like "why?", it would not take them long to realize that these are the result of our own actions..our excessive need for comfort which has descended on the world like a plague. While I'm not against humans building better houses/facilities..I only wish that they meditate a bit upon the pros and cons of such actions. How much is the life of an almost extinct species worth? A new hiking trail? a better pool? a bigger house in a suburb? This is what I meant by the term "species centric mindset"...a notion that anything we humans "want" automatically supersedes that of other species..even if it means we invade their turf, and kill them/drive them off in the process.


While saving cobras instead of humans from a burning house is definitely stupid, the point I was trying to make is that we have become so accustomed to our self-appointed "rulers of this world and everything on it" title that we are (indirectly) willing to let entire species go extinct lest they impinge on our ever increasing need for more and more luxuries.


One need not worry about patches of moss, but one need to realize that one has to draw a line on humans "wants" when its evident that our wants always increase(never decrease) and at the cost of other beings which share this planet with us. Have we become so removed from basic kindness for other beings that we would rather have a nice picnic area even if that means we would be driving coyotes and Mountain lions out of their natural habitat?. Have we become so enamored with cheaper/huge quantities of meat that we are willing to torture animals from birth to death, in camps that would would put Hitler's concentration camps to shame just so we can have a nice barbecue? (In case anyone has not seen it yet, I would definitely recommend "Food inc" ). Factory farms are a horror that exemplifies our "out of sight, out of mind" mindset.


What if, in the future some Aliens from another planet come to ours, declare themselves to be the head honcho (and lets assume that their intelligence is so much more advanced that we are to them what ants are to us). What if they start corralling us into factory farms to be their next chicken..I mean Human nuggets? Sure its a hypothetical question; but it does highlight the point I was trying to make. Just because we are "more advanced" than other beings in this planet does not give us the right to do anything we wish.

Coming back to the topic at hand, the Dharmic philosophies say that we have to realize that we are but a strand in the web of life.

Most people do not know the real meaning behind the term "Namaste". It actually means ""I bow to that in you, which is the same in me; we are one.". While not taking such a notion to an extreme of equating a human life with that of a moss, we should at least try to put the life of other beings over the need of a bigger backyard.


There is no need for some "divine vending machine"(god) in the sky to order us humans to realize such stuff, I'm an Atheist and as I said in my previous post, Dharma transcends gods. To paraphrase the words of Vivekananda

"What you others call a dream is for us the only reality. Cities,
luxuries, the marvels of consumer life, we have awakened
from that brutal dream by which you are still enthralled. We
close our eyes, we hold our breath, we sit under the kindly shade
of a tree before the primitive fire, and the Infinite opens its doors
to us and we enter into the inner world which is the real one"

When one realizes that everything in this universe is basically made up of the same thing, one realizes that one has to live in such a way that it creates the least impact on one's surroundings. Not everyone can do that, but most can make a very significant contribution to reduce their ecological footprint if they ask themselves the simple question. "I want this, but Do i really "need" this?". Every needless extravagance we let go of, more beings would benefit(indirectly). Every small change adds up when millions of people do it.


lol my post has become a long one, So ill end it here :P