How Buddhism can help to prevent earth becoming extinct

[sundara]

Here is a link to a site of how Buddhism can help turn around the runaway global meltdown of the 3 major ice poles:
http://www.ecobuddhism.org/

[David N. Snyder]

That looks like a good site. I see they have a Declaration petition, signed first by the Dalai Lama.

[acinteyyo]

This may be a bit off topic, but...
I can't even see a reason why the earth should exist and I can't find a reason why the earth should be prevented from becoming extinct. All I can see is that human beings aren't acting by nature, a consequence is e.g. human beings destroy their own natural habitat. I think buddhism can't help preventing earth becoming extinct. Buddhism can help human beings acting by nature (according to Dhamma), a consequence would be e.g. human beings wouldn't destroy their own natural habitat.
In the end extinction is a natural phenomenon, no one can prevent conditioned things becoming extinct. And the earth is one of these conditioned things as well as human beings. Trying to change the world will fail, but to change oneself can change the world.

best wishes

[David N. Snyder]

This may be a bit off topic, but...
I can't even see a reason why the earth should exist and I can't find a reason why the earth should be prevented from becoming extinct. All I can see is that human beings aren't acting by nature, a consequence is e.g. human beings destroy their own natural habitat. I think buddhism can't help preventing earth becoming extinct. Buddhism can help human beings acting by nature (according to Dhamma), a consequence would be e.g. human beings wouldn't destroy their own natural habitat.
In the end extinction is a natural phenomenon, no one can prevent conditioned things becoming extinct. And the earth is one of these conditioned things as well as human beings. Trying to change the world will fail, but to change oneself can change the world.

Hi acinteyyo,

Not off topic at all. You make the good point that all conditioned things are impermanent, anicca. Even the earth will be gone one day, even the whole solar system. And then at some later time, far in the future, the space dust will reconstitute and re-evolve and re-form a new solar system (Brahmajala Sutta).

I wonder sometimes if even global warming is part of the natural cycle and how much of it is man-made. There were plenty of cycles of warming periods in the past. But on the other hand all of the green innovations and actions are helping to reduce carbon emissions and pollution and for someone like me who lives in major urban areas, I welcome any chance for less pollution and smog. The quality of life will be much greater even if there is no increase in quantity.

In general, most of the green principles of ecology and conservation, and non-destruction appear to be compatible with the Buddha's teachings against destroying life and for example how monks and nuns are not even allowed to destroy or harm plants.

[acinteyyo]

very well said indeed!

[clw_uk]

This may be a bit off topic, but...
I can't even see a reason why the earth should exist and I can't find a reason why the earth should be prevented from becoming extinct. All I can see is that human beings aren't acting by nature, a consequence is e.g. human beings destroy their own natural habitat. I think buddhism can't help preventing earth becoming extinct. Buddhism can help human beings acting by nature (according to Dhamma), a consequence would be e.g. human beings wouldn't destroy their own natural habitat.
In the end extinction is a natural phenomenon, no one can prevent conditioned things becoming extinct. And the earth is one of these conditioned things as well as human beings. Trying to change the world will fail, but to change oneself can change the world.

No reason why we shouldnt try to prevent disasters, otherwise we can start taking the view of not bothering to try and cure cancer or treat illness, why bother to solve world hunger? Why bother to prevent wars?


Yes there is anicca but the Buddha didnt want us to sit back and let things happen. Sitting back and letting calamity come about when one could have prevented it is, in my eyes, cruelty. If global warming continues and the enviroment does get worse then a hell of a lot of people are going to suffer, badly

metta

[Cittasanto]

Hi Clive
I think you are missing what is meant.

[clw_uk]

Who is clive?

[Cittasanto]

ok forgot your name

[acinteyyo]

No reason why we shouldnt try to prevent disasters, otherwise we can start taking the view of not bothering to try and cure cancer or treat illness, why bother to solve world hunger? Why bother to prevent wars?
Yes there is anicca but the Buddha didnt want us to sit back and let things happen. Sitting back and letting calamity come about when one could have prevented it is, in my eyes, cruelty. If global warming continues and the enviroment does get worse then a hell of a lot of people are going to suffer, badly

metta

that's why I said: "This may be a bit off topic..."
you misunderstood my posting. any conditioned thing has its cessation and this is unchangeable. buddhism can't prevent anything (any conditioned thing) from its ending. this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make this world a "better" world (depending on the possibilities we have). but in my eyes it's impossible to make this world a "better" world if we try to change the world. this is out of our range. in range is to change ourselves (if necessary). this is what I wanted to point out.
best wishes

[clw_uk]

No reason why we shouldnt try to prevent disasters, otherwise we can start taking the view of not bothering to try and cure cancer or treat illness, why bother to solve world hunger? Why bother to prevent wars?
Yes there is anicca but the Buddha didnt want us to sit back and let things happen. Sitting back and letting calamity come about when one could have prevented it is, in my eyes, cruelty. If global warming continues and the enviroment does get worse then a hell of a lot of people are going to suffer, badly

metta

that's why I said: "This may be a bit off topic..."
you misunderstood my posting. any conditioned thing has its cessation and this is unchangeable. buddhism can't prevent anything (any conditioned thing) from its ending. this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make this world a "better" world (depending on the possibilities we have). but in my eyes it's impossible to make this world a "better" world if we try to change the world. this is out of our range. in range is to change ourselves (if necessary). this is what I wanted to point out.
best wishes

Did misread you slightly, to me it seemed you were saying "all is anicca so why bother", sorry about that

However one point, you said

but in my eyes it's impossible to make this world a "better" world if we try to change the world. this is out of our range

Hasnt the world become slightly better since the bronze age? I doubt there will be perfection, but that doesnt mean efforts cant change the world for the better to some degree

[acinteyyo]

but in my eyes it's impossible to make this world a "better" world if we try to change the world. this is out of our range

Hasnt the world become slightly better since the bronze age? I doubt there will be perfection, but that doesnt mean efforts cant change the world for the better to some degree

Yes, I think the world has become slightly "better". I just don't think the world has become "better" because of people changing the world but because of people who changed themselves. For example if people wouldn't commit crimes (maybe they realized that to commit crimes makes things worse) there wouldn't be any laws (relating to crimes) needed. Nowadays we have laws and penalty (made by people to avoid crimes) but this is still a world full of crimes. This won't change till people get insight, completely insignificantly how many laws will be passed even if there were only death penalty crimes wouldn't vanish. As long as there is greed, hatred and ignorance the world won't really change.

best wishes

[Rhino]

Hasnt the world become slightly better since the bronze age?

Better and worse are just assessments born of craving that wants to reach something. If there was no craving there would be no differentiation of good and bad. Then the things are just like they are.

[tiltbillings]

Hasnt the world become slightly better since the bronze age?

Better and worse are just assessments born of craving that wants to reach something.

Reach something, like the end of suffering?

[Rhino]

Hasnt the world become slightly better since the bronze age?

Better and worse are just assessments born of craving that wants to reach something.

Reach something, like the end of suffering?

Yes. As long as there is suffering there are differentiations like better and worse, even on the noble path. I didn't told something else.
Reaching the end of suffering is the end of craving and the end of the volition to reach something.

[Macavity]

Better and worse are just assessments born of craving that wants to reach something.

If the cessation of craving eliminated the capacity to discriminate, we should expect to read of arahants living on grass and dung.

[Individual]

Although global warming is a serious problem, many people's "solutions" for it aren't very practical largely because they don't seem very knowledgeable. For instance, that website says that renewable energy is "limitless". That's not true. Renewable energy is more flexible, because you have a much larger, purer source of energy, but there is still a fixed amount of energy that can be used (ex: the total amount of energy output of the sun over its lifetime).

Anyway, it's good to have a global cap and trade program to reduce emissions, but the Earth is going to continue to rise in temperature, climate will change, and we will simply have to adapt. Eliminating carbon emissions entirely is not a feasible option economically. Also, a global cap and trade program might be meaningless if underdeveloped countries don't have to abide by the same standards as developed nations. If the standards are unequal, it will basically be a means of wealth distribution to poor countries, so that they can pollute.

[chownah]

Better and worse are just assessments born of craving that wants to reach something.

If the cessation of craving eliminated the capacity to discriminate, we should expect to read of arahants living on grass and dung.

.....and urine.
(see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .ch05.html ....I don't want to get banned on my first post!!!)

chownah

[PeterB]

Hasnt the world become slightly better since the bronze age?

Better and worse are just assessments born of craving that wants to reach something. If there was no craving there would be no differentiation of good and bad. Then the things are just like they are.

We know that sentient life in the Bronze Age was characterised by Dukkha, Anicca, and Anatta. We can be pretty sure that any sentient life on earth in 2000 years time will be characterised by Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta. We can and should attempt to ameliorate the effects of Dukkha, but we aint going to fix it.

[clw_uk]

Hasnt the world become slightly better since the bronze age?

Better and worse are just assessments born of craving that wants to reach something. If there was no craving there would be no differentiation of good and bad. Then the things are just like they are.

We know that sentient life in the Bronze Age was characterised by Dukkha, Anicca, and Anatta. We can be pretty sure that any sentient life on earth in 2000 years time will be characterised by Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta. We can and should attempt to ameliorate the effects of Dukkha, but we aint going to fix it.

Didnt say we could but we can remove some Dukkha even if its just on the outward physical level