Today I want to discuss environmentalism as a more spiritual practice; or at least a more holistic sensibility. Stay with me here. It is my opinion that broader structural changes will not come without the individual internalization of environmental ethics and the establishment of greener cultural values. At present, natural resources issues are still measured against the ruler of economic performance and short-term return. This is the devil's algebra, for lack of a better expression. What we need is an alternate means of conceptualizing value and making policy decisions that reflect this. If our ecological relationships were mediated by something approaching religious respect, then our courses of action would not be given over to such perverse equations as the aforementioned.
Admittedly, this post comes on the back of just having finished a book entitled Environmental Philosophy and Ethics in Buddhism. That's where I'm drawing these notions of 'spirituality' from. It is not meant to connote anything remotely theistic. Instead, I conceieve of it as a certain level of understanding regarding the interconnectivity of all the animate forces that inhabit Earth. It is simple ecology, kicked up a notched into metaphysics.(As a disclaimer, no acid has been dropped in the writing of this post).
What it promises is an escape from purely economic thinking, and a reassertion of respect for the complex systems emplaced over evolutionary time. These naturally constructed communities, these webs of being, are being wantonly destroyed by contemporary human activity. They don't factor into our reasoning very strongly at all. This is regardless of religion as well. Modern Buddhists can have a carbon footprint as well.
However, I have come to find positive solutions in the practical philosophies of the Buddha. After all, the Buddha's pedagogy was a multi-tiered system that emphasized contextual responses over strict imperatives. For instance, laymen were given differing instructions than the monks in the ways to lead a decent life. A farmer could still plough his land for agriculture because food is a necessity, though many plants and bugs may be destroyed in the process. Conversely, the monks were restricted from such professions, and were even advised not to travel during the rainy season when they might trample the emerging worms. As such, you'll find none of the categorical moral philosophy that was popularized by Kant in the Western tradition.
The implication of this is that the individual retains a greater amount of responsibility for his own enlightenment, in the same way that we should each be cultivating our own experience-based sensibilities towards the environment. This allows for a much stronger connection to our actions than being instructed what to do by an elevated power such as the government. We should feel how to act and behave towards the land. We should inherently know that strip-mining is an inexcusable violation of the Earth, or that fracking too is condemnable practice.
Ultimately what I'm suggesting is a shift towards eco-centric ethics; a mindset where all of life is taken into account equally, rather than being overshadowed by anthropocentrism. The route I've taken to this sensibility is through Buddhism, but that is by no means the only way. Some of the most passionate environmental literature I've read has been authored by bona fide Creationists who view themselves as stewards of this planet. But the effect is essentially the same. I believe that if only we taken these issues to heart and understand them on a more spiritual or holistic level; or however you might describe it; then a sustainable world may yet prevail.
No comments:
Post a Comment