Ecodharma: Chapter 1 (continued)

[Doshin]

Ecodharma: Chapter 1 (Continued from ‘Means versus Ends’ to end of Chapter)

David begins this section by linking economics (profitability) with an ecological problem. He discusses that our relationship towards the natural world has changed as our population increased and technology advanced. His perspective is that economic systems do not value the biosphere and yet all economies are subsidiaries of the biosphere. Continued growth/expansion of economies leads to more ecological challenges because there are finite resources on earth.

The title of Chapter 1 'Is Climate Change the Problem?' captures the theme David builds throughout the chapter. As we learned last week there are many ecological problems and some are (or were) independent of climate change (e.g., species loss has been fueled the last century by habitat loss and now climate change exasperates the problem). As he points out in the Introduction, conversion to all renewable energy will not address all the underlying causes that have led to the diversity of ecological challenges discussed. He explains that more than a technological, economic, political, or scientific fix is needed. He believes humanity is experiencing a spiritual crisis. Our view towards the world and our place in it is not sustainable.

As this Chapter comes to an end, David begins to highlight the Buddhist view and how it places an emphasis on interdependence/interrelationships of all but ends with the question “Does Buddhism itself need to wake up?”

What were your take aways from this Chapter?

What do you think he means that maybe Buddhism needs to wake up?

Doshin
st

[Juki]

What interests me here is the discussion of the disconnect between people and nature. I recall a line from the start of an old song by a band called Love and Rockets (which was made up of members of an even better band called Bauhaus). The song was called "No New Tale to Tell," and it began with a line that said "You cannot go against nature, because when you do, go against nature, it's part of nature too." And that's really it, isn't it? No matter how divorced from nature we may have become, everything we are and everything we do is part of nature. And because we are only a part of nature, we can't destroy nature as a whole, which is much bigger and more all-encompassing than even eight billion humans. However, we can damage the *%#@ out of it, we can bring it to the point of catastrophe, but in the end, nature always wins. In the same way that chutes of small plants start to grow right through the crumbling concrete floor of an abandoned factory, if we continue to ignore these problems, eventually nature will dispose of us and start over. Only, it won't dispose of all of us; some of us, maybe a few hundred million, will likely survive the devastation and have to start over with a new set of rules. My gut tells me that if that happens, we may actually return to the point where humans once again have a connection with and reverence for the natural world.

But, the myth of constant economic growth has to be abandoned if we are to have any hope of even making a start on addressing these problems. For that to happen, the laws governing business structures and corporate liability will require massive change. Here, I will leave you with another quote, this one from the American novelist Tom Robbins. In one of his novels, he is discussing the spiritual nature of early cave paintings, when he writes:

"Time passed. Art came off the walls and became rituals. Ritual became religion. Religion spawned science. Science led to big business. And big business, if it continues on its present, mindless trajectory, could land those lucky enough to survive its ultimate legacy back into caves again."

Oh well, a cave is a good place for a retreat!

Gassho,
Juki

sat today and lah

p.s. I don't think Loy means that the Dharma needs to wake up, merely that institutional Buddhism needs to wake up.

[Kokuu]

I recall a line from the start of an old song by a band called Love and Rockets (which was made up of members of an even better band called Bauhaus). The song was called "No New Tale to Tell," and it began with a line that said "You cannot go against nature, because when you do, go against nature, it's part of nature too."

<3 Bauhaus!

My take away from this part of the chapter is about the issues that arise when we divorce economics from other parts of reality. The current model of never ending growth on a planet with finite resources is clearly totally unrealistic, yet is still taught as mainstream economics. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Tim Dowling produced a report to the UK government in 2009 showing how we can achieve prosperity without growth, and this became a widely popular book (https://timjackson.org.uk/ecological-economics/pwg/).

David Loy points out that other cultures have experienced ecological catastrophe and the last major extinction event was due to palaeolithic people wiping out the megafauna such as giant sloths and mammoths, that existed during the last ice age (10 000 + years ago), although climate change may also have played a role, so that is not just a modern phenomenon. Christian and Buddhist countries, which both might have had spiritual reasons to conserve or respect nature and be guardians for wild creatures, have also had a history of putting economic growth far above protecting the environment (see The Buddha's Footprint (https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/16092.html) for a discussion of this in the Buddhist context).

Secular thinking did not have to divorce nature and economics. Both Doshin and I came to an early understanding of the interconnectedness of all life through our studies in ecology. The science has long been there. However, a doctor once told me that the problem with modern medicine is that different specialties have developed in order to focus on studying different parts of the body in detail, but they can forget to put all of the bits back together when thinking about human health. A similar thing seems to have happened in studying the sciences and social sciences. Thinkers such as E F Schumacher, in Small is Beautiful, have put ecology and economics back together, but this is a rarity, and most people would prefer not to think about the effects of production of the things that they buy, or where those things end up when they are eventually discarded.

In terms of Buddhism waking up, modern Buddhism in the west has largely integrated itself into our current secular economic model. Although there is some sense of being content with less, Buddhism has developed into its own economic entity, producing millions of statues, books, malas, zafus etc. Buddhist centres require rich people in order to pay for retreats, and even richer patrons to keep organisations funded.

We need to start educating people early on the full life cycle of production and how the Earth is essentially a spaceship we all travel on and, apart from the sun, all of the resources we will ever have are here, and all of the waste we produce will also remain with us (well, I guess we could fire it into space :-/). All religions and the secular world need to wake up, and quickly.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Tairin]

What were your take aways from this Chapter?

Well firstly quite a bit of Loy’s discussion on the function and fiction of money reminded me of a similar discussion in Yuval Noah Harari‘s book “Sapiens”. Money has no intrinsic value. It is just a fiction we have created to represent value. Yet it is nearly impossible to imagine life without it. I work in IT at a large Canadian corporation. I need to eat and have somewhere to live. Yet my employer doesn’t compensate my time with vegetables, meat, bread etc. They give me some token which represents value and I can exchange that elsewhere for what I need. It was eye opening when I first read this in “Sapiens”.

Other things that I highlighted in this section was related to the finite resources and the myth of infinite growth.


“When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money. (Native American saying)”. gassho2

Many years ago in university I read James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis. That was a turning point for me when I realized that this planet needs to be viewed as a living organism. It was interesting to read Loy’s telling of how we ended up moving from a spiritual life where the world was part of the magical fabric of life to one where the Earth is viewed as just a thing to exploit.

What do you think he means that maybe Buddhism needs to wake up?

I think Buddhism risks being just one more thing to commercialize and exploit (reference McMindfulness). I think Buddhism like all spiritual traditions sees the universe as a whole living and interconnected. I think Buddhism does risk simply becoming a means to and end. For what it’s worth though, I don’t believe this is just a problem with Buddhism. I think everyone needs to wake up.

gassho2
Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Heiso]

As others have pointed out, a large takeaway from this chapter is the commodification of everything, which I had long seen as a political problem. But as Loy points out this is as much a spiritual crisis as a political one dating as far back as the reformation and the move toward a de-spiritualised, material world.

This is a very similar point than that raised by a professor of cognitive science (and possibly Buddhism) at the University of Toronto, called John Vervaeke who argues the scientific revolution beginning in that period created a dualism between humans and nature, while the reformation created a dualism between humans and God.

I think what both point to is how easy it is to see 'the environment' as something separate from us, rather than something we are interconnected with. Especially when you have people like Elon Musk suggesting we can go and find a new planet once this one is broken.

What do you think he means that maybe Buddhism needs to wake up?

I think he means that we can't just sit back in mountaintop monasteries and pretend this crisis has nothing to do with us, and so it is a call for an engaged form of Buddhism.

Gassho,

Heiso

StLah

[Doshin]

Thank you for your thoughts.

Tomorrow we begin Chapter 2. However never too late to start since we are going slow and plenty of time to catch up.

Doshin
St

[DanM]

As most people here have said, the main take away for me in this section is the disconnect between ourselves and nature as a defining characteristic of our era. In seeing the natural world as something that is apart from us rather than something we are a part of, we’ve got the whole thing upside down. I think Loy is right to call this collective arrogance a spiritual crisis. Regarding Buddhism waking up, I think Loy is suggesting that more needs to be done to address that crisis.

Gassho,
Dan
ST/LAH

[Meian]

Thank you for your thoughts.

Tomorrow we begin Chapter 2. However never too late to start since we are going slow and plenty of time to catch up.

Doshin
StGassho2, meian st

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Kaisui]

What were your take aways from this Chapter?
The environmental problems we face are a symptom of a deeper problem, how humans prioritise and look at the world.

What do you think he means that maybe Buddhism needs to wake up?
Loy describes all buddhisms as largely introspective in practice, keeping to ourselves, even the Mahayana buddhisms. Buddhism needs to act in a broader way on a larger scale to be effective with the ecological crisis.


p.s. I don't think Loy means that the Dharma needs to wake up, merely that institutional Buddhism needs to wake up.


I think he means that we can't just sit back in mountaintop monasteries and pretend this crisis has nothing to do with us, and so it is a call for an engaged form of Buddhism.

Yes, these.

Gassho,
Kaisui
sat

[Kaisui]

My take away from this part of the chapter is about the issues that arise when we divorce economics from other parts of reality. The current model of never ending growth on a planet with finite resources is clearly totally unrealistic, yet is still taught as mainstream economics. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Tim Dowling produced a report to the UK government in 2009 showing how we can achieve prosperity without growth, and this became a widely popular book (https://timjackson.org.uk/ecological-economics/pwg/).


This book looks interesting and I've made a note of it, thank you Kokuu.

Gassho,
Kaisui
sat&lah