Buddhism, Animals and the Environment

I was first attracted to Buddhism because it seemed to me to be more eco-friendly than other traditions. It seemed more enlightened than Christianity, Islam and Judaism!  But recent investigations have made me wonder if this is really true as we shall see.

In ancient times when the world’s major religions were created they had no notion that the life support systems of our home planet could be destroyed by human activity. But  we now have a global view and we have seen what bad stewardship by humans can accomplish – overpopulation, polluted seas and atmosphere, global warming, deforestation, soil erosion, animal, fish and bird species dying off at an alarming rate to mention just a few.

In Biblical times animal sacrifices were considered desirable as a means of pleasing the deities, and the Roman rulers murdered living creatures for entertainment. It is said that on one day alone 70,000 animals were slaughtered in the Colosseum just for the spectacle. They had no notion that entire species such as lions and tigers could one day be threatened with extinction forever.

We simply can’t interpret 2,500 year-old ideas in the light of 21st Century knowledge and priorities.

Ethical attitudes and the place of animals

In principle Buddhist attitudes to the natural world are very clear. The First Buddhist Precept states ‘I undertake to refrain from harming living beings. Abstaining from violence is a requirement of the Eight Fold Path incorporating Right Action and Right Livelihood. A modern interpretation by Thich Nhat Hahn (in his ‘Order of Inter-being’) includes:

  • 11th Precept: Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans or nature.
  • 12th Precept: Do not kill. Do not let others kill.

Could that be any clearer? No harming, no violence, no butchering or hunting. No profiting from destructive and cruel activities. Non-violence towards all beings and the planet.

Should animals be considered as equal worth as humans? Other religions also have strong views on this. The Hebrew Scriptures (OT) tells us that God granted humans stewardship over the Earth and all living creatures.  Does this mean we have divine permission to exploit them?

Not in Buddhism. Buddhism says we should respect all sentient beings. Fair enough, but what is a sentient being?  Elephants, dolphins, horses, sheep, fish, birds and so on for sure. But how about insects, bacteria, single cell life and viruses – does the First Precept apply equally to them? Clearly not.

It is complicated in Buddhism by the belief that there is a possibility of being reincarnated as an animal and maybe having been animals in previous lives. How could we harm a creature that may once have been our mother?

In my opinion all creatures have just as much right to a dignified and cruelty-free life in their own natural environment as we do and Buddhism seems to agree. Good karma arises from taking care of vegetation, waterways, forests and minerals too. Caring for the planet, not exploiting it indiscriminately is a good thing. And so it should be.

A hierarchical world

Even so, like other religions, Buddhism assumes a clear hierarchical structure. Humans are central to Buddhist teachings. Its goal is to encourage advancement towards personal enlightenment.  So humans are above the animals. The idea that all beings are of equal worth and interdependent is not a prime motivator, although there is ‘merit’ in taking care of the natural world.

For me it is disappointing that the welfare of some species considered more important than others. For instance, when a bullfighter gets injured in the ring, who do I feel sorry for? The bull, naturally.

How the Four Main Virtues relate to animals and the natural world

The Four Main Virtues in Buddhism are:

  • Loving kindness
  • Compassion
  • Joy
  • Equanimity

With respect to the natural world they raise a number of questions, such as:

  • Is it OK to cull some animals (e.g. badgers, foxes, seals) to protect perceived human interests?
  • Is killing a whale, elephant or lion worse than killing a dog, snake or hedgehog?
  • Is it loving kindness to destroy an animal’s natural habitat (e.g. by cutting down trees and draining marshes) so that it becomes extinct?
  • Where’s the compassion in removing a calf from its mother, stealing her milk and then slaughtering the young? Or in keeping a calf in a tiny pen so it can’t move, and feeding it on an unnatural milk-based diet to make its flesh white for the veal industry?
  • Is it OK to placing a hen in a cage and steal her eggs?
  • Can we stand back with equanimity as human activity destroys the natural .environment?

Our current relationship with the natural world is often bereft of loving kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity. It is highly exploitative and far from harmonious!

Plant life and the environment

Some Buddhist texts forbid causing injury to seeds, crops and vegetation and state that there is merit in planting trees, herbs and other plants. But is this because plant life has worth in itself, or because it is offers utility to humanity, for instance, trees provide shelter, beauty, fruit and timber?

Buddhism is equivocal on whether plants are sentient or non-sentient beings, therefore deserving of the same respect as the higher animals. Even so many Buddhists see living in or close to nature as beneficial (the Buddha himself lived in the forest). And so it is. Humans need sunlight, natural earth resonances and fresh oxygen to thrive.

Again, while the natural world is not the prime objective of good environmental practices, at least it in an indirect beneficiary and we should all be thankful for that.

Vegetarianism and veganism

Buddhist principles strongly suggest a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, but this isn’t followed by all Buddhists. Some say it is alright to eat meat providing you have not knowingly had it killed for you, so, for instance, monks are permitted to eat meat provided they were not complicit in its killing.

On the one hand there are those among Buddhists and the general population who argue that eating meat is natural and healthy and eating is essential to control certain animal populations.

On the other hand, others say (as I do) that rearing animals for meat is uneconomic and wasteful, destroys the balance of nature, damages the environment (e.g. methane), causes suffering to living creatures, and is unnecessary for human health.

So why is it OK in my country to eat a sheep or a pig, but not a dog or cat? And if we are unwilling to kill are we willing to let others kill on our behalf? Could you kill a cow or a sheep and chop it up for  food? Moreover, is it acceptable to use animal products without killing, e.g. milk, eggs, honey. How cruel are we allowed to be? And what about the by-products of the meat industry – leather, gelatine etc.

Once again, Buddhist principles seem clear, while practice does not.

Animal experiments

Is it acceptable or justified to subject a living creature to suffering and probably premature death on the off chance of relieving suffering and illness in human beings.

Conclusion

We are the only animal stupid enough to deliberately destroy the very life support systems of the planet that nourishes us. But they didn’t know that in the Buddha’s day.

Nowadays one of the most pressing questions for humanity is ‘How do we create a lifestyle for all than benefits all creatures in the long term and is sustainable?

Self-restraint, the notion that only if everyone voluntarily restricts the demands they make on the planet can it be saved, is the key but seems to be impossible in capitalist societies (and I include China). It is very much in line with mainstream Buddhist thinking  – but not necessarily followed by all Buddhists.

But there are tensions in Buddhism between the pursuit of individual advancement and environmental concerns. There is no assumption in Buddhism that humans are part of nature and Buddhist virtues such as loving kindness and non-violence are not always extended to the natural world.

That’s not just a pity – it’s a matter of long term survival of all species. Including us.

©David Lawrence Preston, 21 Oct 2017

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter

How to Books, 2007

Manifesto for a Better World

I recently came across a manifesto I wrote when I stood for Parliament in 1983. At that time Britain was suffering the Thatcher era and enjoying a brief period of jingoism after victory in the South Atlantic war. Reading it through it struck me how little the world has progressed in the past thirty years, and just how little I would change if I had to write it again. The issues are as live today as they were then.

‘All over Europe, the international Green Movement is making a major impact and demonstrating the increasing need and support for a new approach to politics.

Britain’s Green Party, is fielding about 100 candidates in this election. We differ from the other parties in that we recognise the wastefulness and destructiveness of our present way of life, and seek to create a sustainable society in which stress, competition and materialism are replaced by a natural enjoyment of life for all.

The purpose of our economic policy is to provide an adequate, sustainable standard of living for all, ending indiscriminate economic growth and discouraging the squandering of irreplaceable resources: we would introduce a resource tax.

We believe in low-growth jobs and would encourage labour-intensive industries. More incentives would be given to re-use, repair and recycling – less to raw material- and fuel-hungry manufacturing processes. We urge massive expansion of home agriculture and investment in energy conservation.

Work should be fulfilling to the individual and beneficial to the community. People have a need for and a right to work, but in present circumstances the stigma should be taken out of unemployment; a basic and secure income needs to be provided for all by the community.

We would phase out nuclear power as quickly as possible. Instead, investment in energy conservation and research into renewable energy sources will balance our energy requirements and provide tens of thousands of new jobs.

Massive energy savings could be made by investing in more fuel-efficient modes of transport and planning facilities nearer to where people live, to reduce dependence on transport.

We would withdraw from the EEC, since membership is incompatible with a sustainable, self-sufficient economy. We would reduce our dependence on trade and the activities of multinationals would be checked.

The way to harmony lies through a more just sharing of the world’s resources. If we appear to threaten no-one, we are more likely to be left in peace. We support a professional defence force, strongly armed with conventional weapons and backed by comprehensive civil defence measures at home. Nuclear weapons are no defence and only make confrontation more likely. All foreign military bases here would be closed.

Our attitude to the environment is uncompromising. Strict controls governing land, air and marine pollution would be enforced. The spread of concrete would be halted. Our investment in agriculture would promote organic, natural methods of crop raising, and the inhumane treatment of animals would be outlawed.

Our educational policy stresses comprehensive, co-educational schools controlled directly by the communities they serve and available to all. The curriculum needs to be broadened and to emphasise the fulfilment of each child’s potential in a non-competitive, non-exam-orientated way.

We support proportional representation; we would introduce a Bill of Rights and a Freedom of Information Act.

Finally, the most serious threat to world stability is our reliance on the resources of other countries. The conditions under which most of the world’s population live represent a scandal.  We would meet our obligations to the developing world fully, by means of more financial and appropriate technological aid, and more equitable trading arrangements.

It is important that everybody who supports our objectives stands up to be counted by voting Green on June 9th. This is the only genuine alternative to the destructive policies of all the other parties.’

@@@@@

Well, since 1983 the world has changed, the Soviet Union is no more, China is a force to be reckoned with and some of the developing countries are shaping up to be major economic powers. But one day, if we carry on as we are, Mother Earth will rid itself of the destructive beings that threaten its survival – us – and return to its natural state of balance and harmony.

 

©David Lawrence Preston, 10.3.2016

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston