Global Warning Rolls On: California (North America?) Drought 2021

Metta filled greetings.

Human beings, like all beings need the four great elements internally and externally in balance for well being. What we are expecting is climate anicca resulting in massive dukkha.

Venerable Sariputta speaks of the imbalance of the four great elements in MN 28. This Sutta speaks of a time when even the oceans dry up. This is to illustrate that all form based on the elements are impermanent and cannot be clung to as mine or self.

This is also to bring up a sense of urgency to develop our hearts/minds according to the Buddha’s teaching and not to allow hatred to overcome our hearts no matter how we are treated.

Kindness to all living beings is certainly important. Doing what we can to reduce the harm to the environment is definitely in with the Buddha’s teachings.

We need to do our best and let go.

Please read MN 28, The Greater Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint.

With kind regards,
Suvijjana Bhikkhuni

9 Likes

Doesn’t need to be. There’s plenty of vegan groups online, societies, communities, like this is a Buddhist community forum. Join one, get inspired.

Veganism is very much like a religion, there’s some green view, green action (go vegan), green speech (like this one), green thoughts (loving kindness, repulsiveness of meat, renouncing meat), Green effort (to abandon meat), green livelihood (to not work in meat business, not work in fossil fuel business), green mindfulness (at least on what is being eaten on every meal), green stillness (for meditation on loving kindness, compassion, repulsiveness of meat as corpses).

With the green 8fold path, it’s very easy to become vegan, and remain as one. Buddhists especially have powerful meditation tools to help in this aspect, especially when practising metta, remember the animals in slaughterhouses, due to being slaughtered. And remember that compassion is not only mind, but action, and there’s a concrete action that one can do to help these animals.

With the repulsiveness of meat (parallel of repulsiveness of body), lust for meat can be destroyed whenever it arises. Just reflect that meat is decaying corpses. Especially before the age of refrigeration, meat decays very fast, which made the spice trade so valuable. So meat itself is disgusting, making the stomach as a cemetery. Imagine the feces and urine inside the animal, the fat etc… Repulsiveness of food in general can be specialised to use on meat in particular.

We need all solutions, together, so going vegan, getting the world to switch to renewables, getting electric cars, with solar charging, etc, all works together, it’s too late to depend only on one strategy. Meat industry does account for a lot of methane, which disappears from the atmosphere fast, so it’s the fastest, most impactful thing an individual can do for the world. And it empowers people when there’s something to do rather than to depend on others helplessly.

Well, I wouldn’t worry about the effects of everyone going vegan, for one thing, there can be new jobs of just letting the cows and pigs go free and wild eating grass without needing humans to force breed them (rape) and then kill and eat them.

It’s like worrying who will do the reproduction if everyone becomes monks and nuns? Haha. Realistically, only most people will become vegan, nevertheless, the percentage of vegans in the world is not yet 50%, so a lot of job left to do to spread the word. Green speech is based on right speech. Speech which are true, beneficial, kind, and harmonious, to encourage people to go green, go vegan.

Green view is based on right view. Knowing that eating meat is not bad kamma, but it helps destroy the world. Due to compassion and loving kindness for the world (which includes oneself), one voluntary gives up meat. Eating vegan can be good kamma, when with each meal, each bite, one reflects that this is a meal of compassion, chosen based on compassion. So extra good kamma, why not?

We are aiming for arahanthood already, which is so much harder than going vegan, which involves letting go of all things, so veganism is one of the applications, or test drive on the way, one can give up meat, and it’s not so hard compared to the goal we set ourselves for. So there’s really no reason to be discouraged. It can build confidence. I went vegan; arahanthood, what’s so hard about it? Haha.

5 Likes

I don’t disagree with the fact that there will be multifaceted solutions, but that’s only because I think precious few solutions are going to be universally applicable. Case in point, meat consumption; unless there is some sort of mass disruption (I.e. climate change killing off large quantities of live stock) most people are not going to go vegan. Heck, most people aren’t even going to go vegetarian. There are a great many people in this world, especially here in America, that simply do not share our value system, and never will regardless of whatever arguments we make or information they are presented.

And, also as I mentioned earlier, plant based agriculture presents its own set of problems, and exchanging meat for veganism is only exchanging one set of environmental problems for another.

1 Like

Excellent perspective :joy: and so true!

Well, this makes me think…anybody who thinks veganism “causes no harm” is only fooling themselves. Farms in general displace animals. When those animals attempt a return (which is inevitable) they are dealt with in one way or another.

Also, the tillage and destruction of soil structure kills numerous microorganisms and displaces numerous other animals; so, it’s all about balance, right?

P.S. the preparation of land for seed causes erosion. There is no argument annual plant agriculture causes erosion through and through. Therefore, something is always paying the price for human dominion.

Vegans know veganism is only harm reduction and not something that obliterates all wrongs :slight_smile:

Did you know most of the planet’s farm land is used to feed animals?

If we ate less meat, we would till much less soil and thus kill much less microorganisms! :slight_smile:

If we ate less meat we would have much less erosion! :slight_smile:

All the animals we eat, they need food too, they eat plants. All protein starts with plants, let’s just eat the plants, cut out the middle animal!

2 Likes

I 100% agree with everything you are saying, and understand all those points. As mentioned, I haven’t eaten meat in a long time. Sadly there is still a “moral high ground” people take with veganism/being vegetarian that doesn’t represent reality. No matter what we do, we cause harm. It is all about balance and intention, I suppose.

1 Like

The World Climate is changing. The World is change according to the situation made by the Human.

Unlike US, in Indonesia we have rain in the (supposed) dry season and not to mention the floods will follow. We also preparing for the worst, but not drought or fire but flood which in some area achieving 3 to 5 meters.

May all being be happy.
:pray::pray::pray:

1 Like

Tangentially. For tge past several years I have worked in manufacturing in Finance and Supply Chain analytics capacities, and big chunks of our data analysis has been digging into climate change in order to develop long term strategic plans to adapt, and short term strategic plabs to deal with the supply chain and raw materials issues to compensate for the affects we are already seeing.

That is an interesting PhD thesis, good on ya for pursuing it!

No, it wouldn’t. The most impactful things you could do would be to unplug all your electronics, recycle them, bike everywhere you go or take mass transit, and never turn on your AC or heat again.

Let’s break this down. According to the greater portion if peer reviewed studies I have seen, going vegan will cut your carbon footprint as an individual by 4-6%. It will also save you about $1k a year.

All cool, right? It would seem so, except everyone forgets that the rebound effect is a thing. What are you going to do do with that grand burning a hole in your pocket? More likely than not people are going to spend it, on cars, travel, new consumable electronics and so on. All those vegan cost savings would either be eclipsed by or offset by your other consumption.

Say tesla can out with a reliable $5,000 EV tomorrow. The additional roads, manufacturing energy consumption, and habitat loss would easily offset the gains we would realize through having EV’s.

That may have been true historically, but I don’t believe it is any longer. According to greenpeace and some other orgs, 80%+ of deforestation in the present day is for plant agriculture, with palm oil and soy being the primary offenders.

Agreed 100%. For the record, I am not trying to argue that veganism is not the best option from an ethical standpoint. It is, and I don’t think anyone here at least would disagree with that. I only question whether or not veganism, even on a mass scale, would be efficacious in reducing our current predicament.

Corporations make products for profit, they don’t make anything for people, in they sense that they make it altruistically. Capitalism in general and corporations in particular are inherently exploitative. Getting rid of them would be a buge step forward.

To be perfectly frank, if we stopped animal agriculture, the overwhelming majority of farm animals would have to be culled. Some animals, like pigs, would go feral and cause catastrophic environmental damage. My own state has had problems with feral hogs, and some years it’s so bad that the dept of conservation puts a shoot on sight order out for them during hunting season. Other animals, such as cattle, are largely incapable of extended survival without human support, and even if they could, they woukd be spreading mad cow and bovine rinderpest to every nearby mammalian species. And the list goes on.

I see it as just part of the woke movement. There’s feminism, LGBT, black rights, etc… Just as it was once impossible to think that the world would not condone slavery any longer, so too, one day, the world may regard slavery and killing of animals as something which is against our fundamental human values. Also, in terms of Buddhist values, if applied universally, we Buddhists would be opposed to all slaughter houses as well. Thus, in this world without slaughterhouses, the only meat people ideally eat, are the meat of animals who die naturally, not killed by humans. And fake meat, plant based meat, lab grown meat.

As to your other points on considering the impacts of veganism on environment, at least there’s still the compassion motivation of not having animals killed systematically just for that few minutes of taste on the taste buds.

Covid 19 can be seen as one of the disruptions which may had originated from eating of bats.

1 Like

[quote=“NgXinZhao, post:31, topic:20685”]I
see it as just part of the woke movement. There’s feminism, LGBT, black rights, etc… Just as it was once impossible to think that the world would not condone slavery any longer, so too, one day, the world may regard slavery and killing of animals as something which is against our fundamental human values
[/quote]

Venerable, I wish I could agree with you. Maybe I am being overly pessimistic, but frankly I am surrounded by people who think that things like lgbt, womans, and BIPOC rights are “moral evils”. Even though they won’t publicly admit it, but these people admire the confederacy and think stuff like Gilead from the Handmaid’s Tale is a good setup for society. I don’t think the progress you believe is happening is as lervasive as you think.

This is not my impression from the literature. Please consider that I read this literature as part of my PhD work, I can link you to articles if you’re interested in having views in line with the literature.

More likely it will go to paying down debt, but this is a good point for why the global economy is so bad for sustainability.

Almost all that soy is going to feed cows , chickens and salmon in fish farms. Palm oil is also used for animal feed (not sure of the extent of this right now).

Agreed about capitalism, but oil companies pollute because people want strawberries year round and have personal cars. I don’t think we can separate corporate emissions from the ‘wants’ of affluent populations (typically in the global North).

Animal agriculture could be fazed out. We don’t have to shut everything down on friday and just open the doors and let the animals roam around freely…

1 Like

I think one of the virtues we have to have is patience, the way for old ideas to die out is for those who hold them to die out.

With the internet, new ideas, cultural change happens super fast, many times within a generation, many times within even 10 years.

Whereas it may take 2-3 generations for those who don’t keep up with the global cultural change to die out. So we are just living in an era where changes are happening fast online, but slow for some others.

Of course, interfaith engagements, being willing to listen with compassion, learning other’s concern are important too.

Karen Armstrong’s Twelve Steps to compassion is one of the excellent books (which is mostly involving Buddhist methods of compassion, but applicable across religions). With compassion, we can see the reasonings behind many liberal movements. With the tribal instincts, we can see many of the reasonings behind many conservative positions.

EBT can be seen as one of the tribal, conservative positions. This is one way to emphasise with others who hold their conservative positions.

1 Like

I was really shocked when I was in Palm Springs. The whole week I was there, there was a gushing river of water flowing down the gutter into the drain, no-one seemed to care. Brilliant emerald-green lawns, sprinklers spraying all day, fountains in the malls, it was like an ostentatious display of wastage. In Oz, we’re not great with the environment, but I grew up in Perth with water restrictions just a fact of life.

True, and yet:

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/consumption/foods-and-beverages/world-consumption-of-meat/story

Send me whatever you find of interest. PM it though, no reason to clutter the thread.

What’s going to happen when the debts all paid down?

Agreed, which I was promoting a needs based economy instead of a wants based one.

In America, I think that’s largely correct. However, in soy exports out of the global south where the deforestation is most severe, usage in destination countries is 1/3rd animal/aquaculture, 1/3rd (or more) human consumption and 1/3rd or less non-foodstuffs. The last reports I saw for soy were out of Europe, and that’s about how they lined up.

2 Likes

Very interesting point.

I do think I agree with @Erika_ODonnell in the sense that going vegan is something anybody can do, immediately. (Edit: I don’t think this was said exactly but it’s my assumption) Which is huge. The other things like reducing car usage and such, may not be feasible for many people depending on their commute and such.

Maybe I am a bit of a pessimist, although I prefer realist lol, but yeah there is always a “this for that” exchange of some sort.

I just do the best I can.

I don’t know anything about this area of concern, but it strikes me that the elephant in the room is the human population explosion over the last couple of hundred years.

Is seems from my admittedly ignorant understanding, that what a single person does or doesn’t do is pretty much inconsequential except in one area and that is having children?

A bit like a plague of locust, what each one of us does is not much, it’s just when there’s so damn many of us that the trouble starts.

I noticed that China has just increased the number of children couples are allowed. While this move towards greater personal freedom plays to my capitalistic upbringing sensibilities, I’m guessing that this is not going to be great for the planet and all the beings that live here?

So, should a modern Buddhist ethics include (either explicit or implicit) restrictions on child birth?

I’ve even got a slogan :wink:

To stop human created climate change, stop creating humans.

I’m interested to learn from those who understand this area better.

1 Like

That’s a tricky situation, as the flip side of population control is population management. We turn off the pregnancy spigot and 20 years later we have critical shortages of necessary workers and medical personnel.

China’s decision to open up the child limit has nothing to do with personal freedom. China is sitting on top of a demographic time bomb as one of the side effects of raising so many millions of peasants out of poverty is that their newly minted middle class is, as of yet, uninterested in having lots of kids.

The short answer to that question is “no”.

2 Likes

One of the well-documented aspects of industrialisation is its impact on birth rates. Most fully industrialised countries reach zero population growth. China isn’t the only country sitting on a demographic time bomb. Japan and some European countries are also having problems with this right now. America might be in a similar situation were it not for immigration. For a long time the only reason there was population growth in America was immigration, although that might have changed recently. I’ve heard that the Millennial generation, if we can indeed talk of such a thing, is larger than the Baby Boomers.

I never had kids (and never will), so I’ve done my part, ha-ha.

3 Likes

From what I’ve seen, it’s expected that, barring any other catastrophe, urbanization will cause the world’s population to eventually drop later this century. It takes decades before the world population will drop because Africa is still in population explosion mode. Countries like Japan and China will probably depopulate alot sooner. For whatever reason, humans just don’t feel like having children in crowded cities and plenty of luxuries. Maybe it’s some kind of adaptation from ancient times when urban populations could collapse easily if the population grew too much. Seems like humans instinctually stop reproducing when the conditions trigger it.

1 Like