Environmentalist and entrepreneur Paul Hawken has edited a book called Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming which lists “the 100 most substantive solutions to reverse global warming, based on meticulous research by leading scientists and policymakers around the world”.
They calculated that the total atmospheric reduction in CO2-equivalent emissions of investment in educating girls is 59.60 gigatons (results by 2050). Investing in family planning is ranked the same.
I’d like to put it slightly differently: the major part of the environment problem is the inequality of women.
Actually, if you add up the figures for “Educating Girls” and “Family Planning”, which basically come down to the same, namely the reduction of the inequality of women, you come to a total of 119.20 GT, which is higher than any other measure that can be taken to reverse climate change!
This statement would have to be explained since the perception of the inequality of non-Western women is a political-social matter where as the environmental problem of perceived climate change is a matter of consumption of resources.
So what exactly would be this education of non-Western women pictured in the article & how would this be related to climate change since it would appear it is not young African or other peasant women contributing to climate change (unless they are engaged in deforestation to earn a meagre living & even then they are not the end users of those forest products).
Is the article proposing ‘birth control’ education, following the theory reducing the 3rd world population will reverse the climate change, which, if real, is probably caused by the consumption of 1st world Western nations?
The Buddha educated women as follows:
The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to her husband in five ways:
(i) she performs her duties well, (ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants (iii) she is faithful, (iv) she protects what he brings (i.e., protects the household finances/is fiscally prudent), (v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.
DN 31
The 2nd wave feminism of the 1950s & 1960s gives an impression it was largely a corporate agenda to create many more dual income families & single working women for the purpose of corporate consumption & profits.
Like the Buddha taught in DN 31, one of the strong characteristics of my scantly educated yet hard working mother was her financial prudence, which was the very opposite of her highly educated yet spendthrift daughters.
Recently, when I was alone at my local beach, many young nymphs in sexy bikinis suddenly entered the water. I was thinking I was reborn in a Gandhabba realm. However, after coming to my senses, I asked: “What is the purpose of your visit here?” A young nymph replied: “We are a womens group having in an environmentalist conference”.
Declining to be rude, I decided to not answer: “Yes, these days women are doing lots, maybe most, of the consuming therefore it is good for women to discuss climate change”.
This corporate feminism or equality started & continued like this:
The book ranks Educating Women and Family Planning as numbers six and seven on its list of one hundred items. I didn’t read enough to learn how he impact of each of the hundred items were quantified.
Clearly the main environmental point, in both cases, is to slow population growth.
It is true that consumption and greenhouse gas production per capita are higher in the west. That doesn’t entail that reducing population growth across the world is unimportant.
Obviously, there is a correlation between the increase in the worldly education of girls and the increase in the perceived threat of climate change (possibly excluding Saudi Arabia).
In short, the so-called ‘education’ (‘indoctrination’) of girls has arguably been a major cause of climate change.
So maybe the central question is in what ways can girls ideally be educated & how the Buddha-Dhamma can contribute to the education of girls and even a different model of education?
I don’t think the Buddha offers us much that is of direct relevance to the optimal political, economic and social organization of human life on Earth. He seems to have been mostly interested in the path to liberation from samsaric existence, not in showing people how to build a better samsara.
But he did offer us all a way to reduce our greed and cravings, and if we could help other people make progress along those lines, we might contribute the reducing the damaging and self-destructive impact of human beings on the planet.
I agree that education that is conducive mainly to the increased fueling of sensual craving, capitalist consumption economies and unnecessary commercial proliferation is not the best kind of education - for women or anyone else. But education that helps women escape from their sexual and reproductive subjugation to men, and take more control over the human race’s reproductive and population future, would be a benefit.
There are lots of suttas about this (example DN 31), including the entire Chapter 37 of the Samyutta Nikaya about the destinies of women, which particularly highlights both the ideal ethical qualities women should develop & how women ideally keep a husband under their control.
For example, while SN 37 states beauty & wealth are the powers of a woman, it highlights the power of ethics (morality) as the most important; that it is perfectly OK to not be beautiful but to only have the power of ethics. Further, it states beauty & wealth without morals is a bad destination.
SN 37 directly addresses the problems with the worldly education or indoctrination of girls today, where wealth & beauty are given a total priority over personal morality.
Also, DN 31 seems to infer a wife’s relationship with her husband is ideally ‘conditional’, namely, the wife returns her love only upon the husband fulfilling his marital & family obligations.
I personally think women are subject to their own sexual & reproductive ambitions rather than the subjugation to men, as least according to the EBTs.
A man is a woman’s aim, her quest is for adornments, her mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and her ideal is domination. AN 6.52
Are women today, in general, less addicted to & entrapped by sexuality than in the past? As an example, my mother was far less a slave to/more liberated from & in control her sexuality than her daughters. Unlike her daughters, my mother was in total control of her husband & sexuality.
Regardless, the EBTs seem to state both worldly men & worldly women are interested in maximising their sexual goals.
I will teach you a Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage… A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that… wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that… wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties… feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties… masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties… masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not attend outwardly to feminine faculties… feminine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not want to be bonded to what is outside him, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in his masculinity, a man does not go into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity.
This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage.
These recommendations were bits of practical advice given to people living 2500 years ago in a predominantly agricultural and clan-run patriarchy. We shouldn’t assume they constitute timeless political philosophy.
Clearly there were many women among the Buddha’s own followers who did not take as their aim adornments, men or a wealthy household life not shared with a co-wife, so in these cases it is best to understand the Buddha as simply making sociological observations about the most common ways of life in his own time, not describing the indelible nature of all women, and not laying down a prescription for human society thousands of years in the future.
The Buddha wasn’t a man like Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Hobbes, Kautilya or Marx. He was not greatly concerned about determining the best form of worldly social life and did not generate a political philosophy. He left his dusty worldly life, the life of the household, plantation, assembly and market, to wander as a solitary renouncer and spiritual seeker. No doubt, as the possessor of a keen insight into the cravings that propel worldly human life forward, he had some wise things to say about human nature and behavior, and some of those things might be useful to those of us who are engaged in the grinding work and trouble of worldly life. But looking to the Buddha for answers about how to manage cities and estates, population levels, wealth and capital development, mating and courtship behavior, household servants or other such matters makes about as much sense as asking Paul Gaugin for advice on the Parisian sanitation system.
So is this saying here that the EBT emphasis upon female empowerment via morality is not a timeless personal ethic? Is this saying morality (non-harming; skilfulness) does not have a central place in the education of girls?
If so, what is the point of posting this on a Buddhist forum in respect to a dhamma that clearly states little can be attained without preserving the moral foundation or precepts (MN 6 ). Is there one single teaching in the EBTs that does not incorporate a moral component or have a moral foundation?
Sure. Maybe bhikkhunis. So is the education of girls to reverse climate change to educate girls to become celibate bhikkhunis?
AN 6.52 obviously refers to the run-on-the-mill laywoman, who understood the natural consequence of having sex was children.
Since having children is no longer the automatic outcome of sexual activity, what alternative do you propose to prevent or minimise the accumulation of craving in childless sexuality, which obviously results in many women engaging in consumption behaviour that contributes to climate change.
I think my point is being missed that when sexual or any other activity leads to the accumulation of craving (in the hungry ghost realm) that this growth in craving will lead to climate change.
Where as peasant women living a subsistence life in Africa or elsewhere, who are content with a few children and who have simple needs, are not contributing to climate change as much as the single American woman that must keep consuming the products of corporations due to her accumulated cravings.
So you are saying, today, apart from lesbians & bhikkhunis, women are not interested in men, not interested in children, not interested in fidelity & not interested in domination?
Most women I know are strongly interest in these things.
[quote=“DKervick, post:11, topic:5635”]not describing the indelible nature of all women
[/quote]
Buddha was describing the motivations of “most” women, as is observable today.
You were there with Buddha 2500 years ago, the Buddha told you this & now you are reincarnated today to inform us of this?
To the contrary, in my personally observations of life, not much has changed. The general run-of-the-mill women still seek men, still seek children, still seek fidelity & still seek power or control over their relationships.
So exactly what type of alternative are you proposing? It is quite difficult to follow what you are posting.
Again, these assertions or dogmas are based in a presupposition that you were actually with the Buddha 2,500 years ago and he told you these things personally.
In reality, the EBTs thoroughly refute this dogma because the EBTs are replete with teachings about the ideal way of life for laypeople, such as DN 31, AN 4.55 and countless other teachings.
I can only suggest to study the EBTs rather than make unsubstantiated assertions.
In his 1st sermon (SN 56.11), the household life was clearly distinguished from the homeless life. Yet, the Buddha also said his compassion in the world was for the many, for gods & humans (i.e., not only for monks). To quote:
‘A being not subject to delusion has appeared in the world for the welfare and happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans,’ it is of me indeed that rightly speaking this should be said. MN 4
This seems to explain why Buddhism officially has a four-fold community, in which the Buddha taught extensively for each community.
This is an EBT forum, where views ideally use the EBTs for substantiation.
Since your first post on this topic, you give the impression of being a Westerner that does not acknowledge it is Western society that is probably the major contributor to (the idea of) climate change. Therefore, you seem to be focused on population control (similar to the world’s richest man, Bill Gates) rather than control of the consumption of resources. In short, your position here appears to be a corporate philosophy rather than a Buddhist philosophy; one of educating girls to be consumers, which, again, contributes to climate change.
Now, if the focus was on the consumption of resources, this would be complemented by the teachings of the Buddha, which praised moderation, which praised the reduction of craving and which promoted frugality in the use of material requisites for both laypeople (eg. AN 4.62; AN 4.258) & monks. The EBT teachings directly promote the idea of sustainable living or consumption.
In DN 31, the Buddha properly described the economic relationship between capital & labour, as performed by the most dynamic employers today, which not only engage in profit sharing but understand, as Henry Ford did, that appropriate wages paid to employees allows employees to purchase the goods they produce thus improve the business.
The EBTs, in my experience, remain the ideal timeless guide for society because the recommendations in the EBTs are replicated by the most competent social scientists today.
In conclusion, any views that do not consider morality (sila) at all are unrelated to the EBTs. Being such, from the EBT viewpoint, they are not related to mental & social health. Any education of girls devoid of a moral component is not only adhamma but leading to suffering & climate change.
The reason I posted on this topic was, because as originally posted, the current corporate model of education of girls (and boys) is obviously a leading contributor to climate change and it is obvious highly educated girls are contributing much more to climate change than lowly educated girls.
No. But it is saying that we can’t transpose very specific moral advice, suitable for specific social circumstances at a specific time, to all social circumstances at all times. "“Refrain from stealing”, “refrain from killing” and “reduce sensual craving” are timeless moral precepts , wholesome in all times. But “manage the wealth your husband makes, do the housework diligently and don’t spend too much” is only applicable to women in social circumstances in which those are the main everyday preoccupations. There is nothing in the suttas that entails women should always live that way.
The Buddha taught meditation techniques that result, when practiced, in reduced sensual craving.
That’s definitely true. But in a society where women do not have access to birth control, or have access to it but do not know how to use it, the number of children they have will not be a function of how many they are content with, but instead will be a function of how frequently they are compelled to submit to their husbands to satisfy his cravings.
No, not at all. But we should certainly not read the Buddha, who was constantly calling on people to go forth from the household life and sensual life, as recommending a way of life in which women are interested in men, children and the exertion of sexual power. He was only making observations about the common samsaric run of things.
No, I’m just observing that, from the reading of the texts alone, we can see that the Buddha did not teach a developed political philosophy or articulate anything that he, himself described as the ideal social order. He offered some general recommendations about community concord, such as the advisability of assembling in peace to discuss important community matters. He thought that people shouldn’t lie, kill and take what is not given. But there is no really comprehensive thinking about the economic order and power arrangements of society as it existed in the Buddha’s own time, and no social plan or prescription about what kinds of social order should exist in the future.
For example, from time to time, certain kings appear to have visited the Buddha and described problems they were having that had arisen in the exercise of their power and assumed responsibilities. The Buddha sometimes gave them very limited and cautious advice. But that doesn’t amount to an endorsement of the political doctrine that monarchy is the best way of organizing society. Similarly, the fact that he sometimes gave householders or their spouses advice on problems arising within their households does not amount to a timeless recommendation about the best way of organizing household life, or even a recognition that household life is a good thing.
No they are conclusions drawn from a reading of the texts and a comparison of them with the works of history’s most influential political philosophers. The Buddha was clearly a spiritual seeker and renunciant, and had a lot to say about the spiritual and renunciant life. He was not a thinker with a lot of theories about how to organize society.
Yes, and right after that quote he launches into an extended discussion on the attainment of the jhanas and arupa states, and the destruction of the asavas. The Buddha’s compassion was manifested primarily in teaching practices and a way of life aimed at going beyond the world of birth and death, and liberating oneself from samsaric existence, with its power trips, wealth-building attainments and endless cycles of craving and reproduction.
But even the talks to householders often recommend an attempt to approximate the holy life within the household.[quote=“Deeele, post:12, topic:5635”]
Since your first post on this topic, you give the impression of being a Westerner that does not acknowledge it is Western society that is probably the major contributor to (the idea of) climate change. Therefore, you seem to be focused on population control (similar to the world’s richest man, Bill Gates) rather than control of the consumption of resources.
[/quote]
No, if you read my earlier comment, you will see the exact opposite is true. Population control was cited as only one factor among many for reducing the growth rate in the consumption of resources, and for even reducing consumption overall. We need to reduce consumption per capita in the economically developed counties, but also reduce the rate of population increase around the world. Both of these will contribute to a reduction in resource consumption and its harmful environmental impacts.
I don’t know how you came away with that impression. I think you might be projecting on me the attitudes of western capitalist philanthropists. These most important form of education of girls I have been focused on is education about their own bodies and reproductive systems. But I also think educating young women with the skills needed for a certain degree of economic self-reliance and independent participation in the formal economy gives them the power to resist economic and sexual subjugation to more powerful males. This is important, because when women are compelled to accept that subjugation they have children that they don’t want and the world doesn’t need.
Males also need sexual education, of course, including the kind that helps them see they shouldn’t measure their worth and masculinity by the number of sexual partners they have possessed and the number of offspring they have fathered.
Also “refrain from sexual misconduct”. Understanding this precept guides how a person relates both sexually & filially to other people.
Sexual misconduct is also a "timeless precept; actually the most important precept in relation to the noble path of samadhi development.
Again, the approach here appears unrelated to the EBTs.
Yes, don’t spend too much is important for climate change.
I have already established the different approaches, namely, population control vs consumption control.
I will point out why your views here are contradictory later.
I will point out why your views here are contradictory later since there is no point in repeating why your views are contradictory.
This, again, is irrelevant. The topic is climate change rather than the conflicts women have due to their natural lusts for reproduction but not being able to control their husband. This is another topic.
While this is actually wrong (since the Buddha did not seek many people to be monks & nuns), I will point out why your views here are illogical & contradictory later.
This cannot be so since you have not quoted one text in your posts here.
No. It is the very opposite. The Buddha presented “ideals” for Buddhists.
However. I will point out why your views here are contradictory later.[quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
He thought that people shouldn’t lie, kill and take what is not given.
[/quote]
He taught people shouldn’t lie, kill and take what is not given and also not engage in sexual misconduct.
Again, the most important precept has been overlooked. [quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
But there is no really comprehensive thinking about the economic order and power arrangements of society as it existed in the Buddha’s own time
[/quote]
But there is. [quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
no social plan or prescription about what kinds of social order should exist in the future.
[/quote]
Dhamma is timeless. That said, this point is again irrelevant.
I will point out why your views here are contradictory later.
No. Refer to AN 4.53 & AN 4.55.[quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
The Buddha was clearly a spiritual seeker and renunciant, and had a lot to say about the spiritual and renunciant life. He was not a thinker with a lot of theories about how to organize society.
[/quote]
The EBTs refute this view.
Regardless, I will point out why your views here are contradictory later.
Sure. I will point out why your views here are contradictory later.[quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
But even the talks to householders often recommend an attempt to approximate the holy life within the household.
[/quote]
Non-sense. However, this is again irrelevant.
I will point out why your views here are illogical & contradictory later.
Definitely not. [quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
We need to reduce consumption per capita in the economically developed counties, but also reduce the rate of population increase around the world. Both of these will contribute to a reduction in resource consumption and its harmful environmental impacts.
[/quote]
This impassioned plea here shows why your views here are contradictory.
Everything you posted about the Buddha contradicts the passion here.
The Buddha supramundane teachings are lokuttara and devoid of distress in relation to the world. [quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
I don’t know how you came away with that impression. I think you might be projecting on me the attitudes of western capitalist philanthropists.
[/quote]
Definitely not. You are asserting the standard corporate model of human affairs yet you are passionately crusading for climate change.
To crusade for climate change is life affirming.
To crusade against reproduction is life negating.
To crusade for monasticism & against the household life is life negating.
What is the point of crusading for climate change when crusading against human life?
Are you crusading against climate change so there a many trees to meditate under; so all beings can become arahants; and so human life can become extinct?
You mean education against their reproductive systems, which is both life negating & women negating.
This is the corporate model that supports consumption.
This is inaccurate. Women have lust as much as men. Further, women are often far more powerful than men.
Both boys & girls need to be educated, as the Buddha taught, in respect to their mutual interdependence.
I mentioned before most women personally want to have children. This is why many modern career women in the 30s are spending $$$ trying to get pregnant via IVF, etc.
That is why the lives of so many women revolve around their children & they consider their children to be the most important things in their lives.
[quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
the world doesn’t need.[/quote]
So now you seem to be playing God, determining the children who “the world” does not need.
Even though you think stopping climate change is needed, for what benefit to save the world?
Is the world to be saved for the trees & animals? Or is the world to be saved for the children?
Sexual misconduct. To Buddha already taught about this 2500 years ago but you overlooked it each time you mentioned the precepts.
[quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
the number of offspring they have fathered.[/quote]
I don’t know men in this situation although I do know women who have pursued the same man in wanting to have children with him.
To end, I cannot agree with your views that:
Women don’t want to have children.
Men force women to have children.
Girls must be educated to despise their reproductive system.
Girls don’t need to be educated about how to skilfully manage their (positive) sexuality.
Girls don’t need to be educate to place moral self-love before corporate values.
Stopping climate change is important when human life & children are unimportant.
The Buddha does not offer a social guide that opposes your Brave New World vision.
Buddha sought for all people to be as monastic as possible.
In short, you seem to totally dismiss the Buddha’s social teachings about ‘mutual interdependence’ in favour of a radical feminist vision & plan for the future of humanity of single women finding economic happiness; a vision that has already been shown to be a materialistic failure & a vision that has been a leading contributor to climate change.
I think whether one is a Radical Feminist or a Buddhist Monastic, the Buddha’s instruction to reflect each day: “I am different; I live a different kind of life to ordinary people” is important.
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, saying: “Monks.” — “Venerable Sir,” they said by way of reply. The Blessed One then spoke as follows:
"These ten essentials must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth (to live the holy life). What are these ten?
1. "‘I am now changed into a different mode of life (from that of a layman).’ This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.
2. "‘My life depends on others.’ This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.
3. "‘I must now behave in a different manner.’ This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.
I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence. How did you come to the conclusion that I did not agree.
The issue under discussion was whether the Buddha had a well-developed political philosophy, and offered systematic teachings on how worldly life should be organized. I claimed he did not. How can I cite texts to prove a claim about what the texts do not include?
If the Buddha had articulated the core of a systematic political philosophy, then presumably the many great philosophers in the subsequent Buddhist traditions would have developed it. But as many scholars who have studied the Buddhist philosophical tradition have noticed, this body of political thought is not to be found.
These ideals are almost entirely concerned with the path to liberation from the snares of the world, not the best way of organizing the world in which we are ensnared.
Apart from the question about which precepts are the most important, you will notice that I also didn’t mention any of the other five of the eight precepts, including refraining from luxury, entertainment, beautification and adornment. You shouldn’t assume that because I only mentioned three of them for the sake of space, I don’t think the others are important.
You see to be projecting upon me some stereotype about “western” attitudes toward sexual and economic behavior, and imagining that by promoting the education of women, I am endorsing a life of greedy materialistic consumption and sexual libertinism, as armies of liberated sexual vampires are set free upon the world from their constraining patriarchal bonds, and indentured servitude in male-run households. On the contrary, I think almost all people should be more sexually abstemious, abstemious in their consumption patterns, moderate in their emotions and in control of their passions.
I support the education of women - and everyone else for that matter - so that they do not have to accept life as a captive servant to a male, where their purpose in life is reduced to gratifying male sexual cravings, providing males with excessively large gaggles of offspring and making males breakfast and dinner. The more education people have, the more capable they are of exercising some choice over how they live.
These are not different approaches, they are complementary. Changing our consumption patterns is a way of reducing per capita consumption. But if per capita consumption is reduced by 10% over some time period, yet the population increases by 25% during that same time period, then consumption will still rise by 12.5%. If we want reductions in personal consumption to lead to aggregate reductions, we need to reduce population growth as well.
The dhamma is the fundamental nature of spiritual reality, and a body of teachings about how to achieve liberation from suffering given those fundamental realities. The dhamma does not contain instructions for the optimal design of chain saws, gardens, municipal intersections or agricultural production systems.
When I read the EBTs, what I find mostly are discourse upon discourse addressed to bhikkhus, and other samanas and holy men and women, about the path to be followed to achieve an end to suffering. There are also some addressed to householders who are attempting to live an abstemious and sexually ascetic life approximating the holy life, within the confines of the household. There are a few discourses addressed to kings or clan leaders struggling with their responsibilities. The advice the Buddha gives generally comes down to some version of “If you harm people in the exercise of your duties, that harm will be revisited upon you.” He also advises people to engage in harmonious and courteous speech as they discuss their practical worldly problems, since the throwing of painful verbal darts will also result in the proliferation of pain, anger and discord.
But the Buddha obviously kept the world and its affairs at arm’s length, and his own community was a community of spiritual seekers living on alms apart from the world, not a utopian political society. He never attempted to set up such a society, and offered only the most general kind of advice to people about the conduct of their worldly lives.
I recommended policies and practices that would reduce the rate of population growth, and hopefully stabilize the global population eventually at a more or less fixed level, so that we can live without unnecessary stress, suffering and political strife on our finite planet with its finite resources. I did not recommend the “negation” or extermination of the human species! The human population is something that can and should be managed.
You have really become lost in your projections. You seem to be arguing against some stereotype of your own concoction, not the things I have said.
For what it’s worth, regarding your list, I would say that:
Many, possibly most, women want to have children. But some women do not want children, and many women do not want to have as many children as they often end up having. This is shown by the evidence: when birth control is made available to women, and they know how to use it, birth rates often go down sharply.
Some men do force women to have children. They exercise this power in both aggressive and more subtle ways. Some women are effectively held captive within their homes and compelled physically to submit to sex, and receive beatings if they attempt to escape from the clutches of the male who controls them. In other cases, women are compelled to have children they might not want because they are dependent on a sexually needy male for both physical and economic protection.
Absolutely not. That is preposterous. Girls (and boys) should be educated to understand their reproductive systems, and to be capable of making wise and wholesome choices about how their reproductive systems are used. Of course, if they chose to go forth to lead the holy life, or some similar life of renunciation, they might choose not to make use of their reproductive systems at all.
Yes, they do need to be so educated.
Yes, they do need to be so educated. Everybody needs to be educated to resist the seductions of the marketplace and to understand the path to true happiness and freedom.
They are both important parts of the most stable and comfortable life available on this planet for human beings.
The Buddha offered occasional practical advice on worldly affairs, and developed insights into the causes of human suffering that those of us who are involved in worldly affairs, and continue to live a worldly life, can apply to the problems we face. But the Buddha saw worldly human life as a theater of misery and was primarily concerned with the escape from it.
This is a difficult one. I don’t think there is any question that he thought the life of one who has gone forth is a superior, more noble form of life, and that household life was dusty, constrained and inferior. He sometimes regarded people as unsuitable candidates for admission into the sangha, but I am unaware of any texts where he says to an aspirant something like, “Oh no, we already have too many monks. We need you to stay in the world to keep the plantations, families and kingdoms running.”
That mutual interdependence stuff sounds a bit like modern Mahayana thought, not early Buddhist thought.
But in any case, I don’t think any human beings can find “economic happiness.” Unhappiness is inherent in all forms of samsaric existence. All we can do is alleviate some of the courser form of economic and political suffering: things like extreme hunger and deprivation, the anxiety of acquisitive greed, and slavery and other forms of economic subjugation and oppression. I view the liberation of women from sexual, political and economic subjugation to male masters as part of the latter goal. For those who chose marriage under those more liberated conditions, the marriage is a partnership of equals, no a master-servant relationship. But it should not be assumed that this makes women economically happy and satisfied. After all, the lives of their male counterparts are full of suffering too.
The discussion here really seems to have strayed considerably from the Watercooler category description:
Come here for some friendly chat, and hang out with Dhamma friends. No worries.
This space is for informal, friendly discussion, whether on the suttas or not. It’s a place to support each other and make connections, not to prove a point. If things get too, well, logical, best move it into the normal Discussion category.
Great, thanks! As another friendly reminder for everyone, as per our [Universal Rules of Dhamma Discourse] (https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/universal-rules-of-dhamma-discourse), we’re still aiming for conduct appropriate for a temple across all forum categorises and encourage that the advice given in MN 21 be used as a guide for posts:
I will speak at a right time, not at a wrong time; I will speak about what is true, not about what is not true; I will speak with gentleness, not with harshness; I will speak about what is meaningful, not about what is not meaningful; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hatred.
[quote=Deeele][quote=“DKervick, post:13, topic:5635”]
how frequently they are compelled to submit to their husbands to satisfy his cravings.
[/quote]
This, again, is irrelevant. The topic is climate change rather than the conflicts women have due to their natural lusts for reproduction but not being able to control their husband. This is another topic. [/quote]You do realize that @DKervick is talking about marital rape explicitly? Do you? Is this how you frame and respond that particular far-reaching problem?
I’d like to put it slightly differently: the major part of the environment problem is the inequality of women.
here.
