The Buddhist Response to Ecocide?

[Dhammakid]

Hey friends,
Allow me a little bit of time to provide context before asking my question, so that we all can start with a similar understanding of the topic.

According to many credible ecological and environmental sources, our current way of life - that is, industrial civilization - is killing the planet. The advent of agriculture and the domestication of living beings, as well as the use of fossil fuels for technological advancement, is destroying the life support systems of the planet. Global warming is just one piece to it - there is also the increasing numbers of dead zones in the ocean, rivers/lakes that no longer support life, as well as the estimated extinction of 200 species of animals per day. As a matter of fact, ecologists are calling this current period of extinction the Holocene Extinction period, the sixth of its kind, the difference between them being that this current one is caused by humans.

Many estimates predict that in roughly a hundred years, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the increase in temperature as well as the number of species extinctions will be too much for the life balance system and most species that are left will not be able to survive much longer, including us, the human animal.

Many sources state that there are no technological solutions to this problem - that the problem was created by agriculture and technology, and therefore cannot be solved by it. This is because the processes necessary to sustain these activities are themselves incredibly destructive. Most of us here probably know how harmful drilling for oil and other fossil fuels are to the earth and environment, but also considering deforesting, the pollution of air and water, acid rain and the increasing size of the hole in the ozone layer and the bleak picture of man-made climate change comes into view. There are parts of oceans and other bodies of water where phyto-plankton are decreasing at an alarming rate. Plankton are one of the main producers of oxygen for the planet.

Furthermore, the world is quickly nearing peak oil - that is, since oil is a finite resource, we will eventually run out of oil to drill and take out of the earth. Soon (very very soon, like within the next couple decades, or maybe even sooner according to some estimates) we will be taking more oil out of the earth than can be replaced. Think about it: our entire way of life is based on the use of a nonrenewable resource - oil. What will we do when we run out of oil? How will we heat/cool all of these buildings, or run all of these machines?

Finally, the world is quickly nearing population overshoot. Overshoot doesn't just mean that many living beings will die due to the inability of the landbase to support such numbers; overshoot actually lowers the original carrying capacity of that landbase.

Now, I know many of us here may have doubts as to the severity of these reports, and you may dispute sources and numbers. But now for my question:

If these reports are true; that is, if it's true that human beings are literally destroying the life support systems on the planet and endangering current and future generations to the point where they may be unable to survive long on an almost-dead planet, then what is the Buddhist response to this?

If these reports are true, we can be sure that governments, militaries and other authoritative organizations will not voluntarily undergo a transformation towards a more sustainable way of life. They just won't do it, no matter how much we plead and petition and try to change their hearts and minds. They will, most likely, continue on this ecocidal and suicidal trajectory until the planet no longer supports most lifeforms. Are we to simply sit back and let this happen? What do we do as Buddhists when rallies, petitions, marches and boycotts don't work?

I'm not knowledgeable enough on this topic to argue for or against it - I'm really just now learning. So what I'm looking for is a discussion on what the Buddhist response to this problem would be if these reports are true. Should we even be concerned with saving the planet from further destruction? Is that inside the realm of Buddhist practice?

I look forward to your responses.

[James the Giant]

I feel a bit helpless really, against all these vast economic and physical forces.

If it's all as hopeless as you suggest, then as a buddhist my personal response is to sit and contemplate anicca, dukkha, and anatta, and then live according to what I find in that internal space.

And also be prepared to starve to death or equanimously meet some other unpleasant, apocalyptic end.

[mikenz66]

Not sure how to fix it, but as Bhikkhu Bodhi observes in "In the Buddha's Words", it's clear that a certain degree of stability was required to make it possible for people to seek enlightenment, so the Buddha did give quite a lot of advice about social stability, and so on...

You might take a look at the Suttas mentioned in, especially, Chapter 4:
http://downloads.wisdompubs.org/website ... review.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IV. The Happiness Visible in This Present Life

• Introduction 107
  1. Upholding the Dhamma in Society
  (1) The King of the Dhamma (AN 3:14) 115
  (2) Worshipping the Six Directions (from DN 31) 116
  2. The Family
  (1) Parents and Children
  (a) Respect for Parents (AN 4:63) 118
  (b) Repaying One’s Parents (AN 2: iv, 2) 119
  (2) Husbands and Wives
  (a) Different Kinds of Marriages (AN 4:53) 119
  (b) How to Be United in Future Lives (AN 4:55) 121
  (c) Seven Kinds of Wives (AN 7:59) 122
  3. Present Welfare, Future Welfare (AN 8:54) 124
  4. Right Livelihood
  (1) Avoiding Wrong Livelihood (AN 5:177) 126
  (2) The Proper Use of Wealth (AN 4:61) 126
  (3) A Family Man’s Happiness (AN 4:62) 127
  5. The Woman of the Home (AN 8:49) 128
  6. The Community
  (1) Six Roots of Dispute (from MN 104) 130
  (2) Six Principles of Cordiality (from MN 104) 131
  (3) Purification Is for All Four Castes (MN 93, abridged) 132
  (4) Seven Principles of Social Stability (from DN 16) 137
  (5) The Wheel-Turning Monarch (from DN 26) 139
  (6) Bringing Tranquillity to the Land (from DN 5) 141

Mike

[Kim OHara]

Hey friends,
Allow me a little bit of time to provide context before asking my question, so that we all can start with a similar understanding of the topic.

According to many credible ecological and environmental sources, our current way of life - that is, industrial civilization - is killing the planet. ...
Many sources state that there are no technological solutions to this problem ...
Furthermore, the world is quickly nearing peak oil ...
Finally, the world is quickly nearing population overshoot...
If these reports are true, we can be sure that governments, militaries and other authoritative organizations will not voluntarily undergo a transformation towards a more sustainable way of life. ...
Now, I know many of us here may have doubts as to the severity of these reports, and you may dispute sources and numbers.

Hi, Dhammakid,
All of these problems are real and urgent but I think you are tending to overstate them a bit and that brings on feelings of helplessness - not good. My own feeling is that we will sort of scrape through the concurrent crises, however much better it would have been if we had started to act a few decades earlier. People in power are in fact now changing their orientation - some quicker than others, but it is happening. And the closer the crunch, the harder people will work to avert it. Just to take one point, renewable energy:
* Renewable power consumption grew by 15.5% in 2010, the fastest rate of expansion since 1990. While the share of renewable power in global energy consumption is still only 1.3% (up from 0.6% in 2000), renewable power now contributes a significant share of primary energy consumption in some individual countries. Eight nations have a renewables share of more than 5%, led by Denmark with 13.1%.
* Solar power generating capacity grew by 73% in 2010, picking up the pace again after a brief slowdown in 2009. Total capacity grew by 16.7 GW to reach 40 GW, more than double the 2008 level. That is still only around 0.1% of total electricity generation but the rate of growth, which has averaged 39% pa over the past 10 years, suggests rapid changes in that figure.
* Wind power generating capacity grew by 24.6% in 2010, with capacity increasing by a record 39.4 GW. The trend rate of capacity growth over the past 10 years is 27% pa, which implies a doubling of capacity every three years, and the fastest growth is occurring in China and India.
Those figures are from http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categor ... Id=7068627, a report put out by BP - hardly poster-kids for environmental activism!

But now for my question:
If these reports are true; that is, if it's true that human beings are literally destroying the life support systems on the planet and endangering current and future generations to the point where they may be unable to survive long on an almost-dead planet, then what is the Buddhist response to this?
Are we to simply sit back and let this happen? What do we do as Buddhists when rallies, petitions, marches and boycotts don't work?

My position is that, as Buddhists, compassion urges us to act as best we can to improve the lives of all living beings now and in the future. Given that environmental collapse will affect nearly everyone - some catastrophically, some less so, but none positively - we should act as best we can to slow or avert that collapse.
I don't accept that 'rallies, petitions, marches and boycotts don't work', though they are less effective than I would like. The ballot box has some power; personal political/conservationist action (including writing stuff like this) has some power; joining with others amplifies your contribution; taking direct action to reduce your impact on the environment is also good.
Our problems are multiple and many of them have multiple causes. The solutions are just as diverse and we we need to work on all fronts at once if we are to minimise the harm that is heading our way. Start anywhere, but do start!

Kim

Starting points:
http://www.ecobuddhism.org/index.php
http://www.365act.com/
http://www.wwf.org/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/

[chownah]

Dhammakid,
You have requested that we accept the scenario which you presented and rather than to question its validity we should address what to do IF it is true. Does this include the assertion that "There are no technological solution to this problem"?

In otherwords are we to assume that to struggle against the destruction of the living environment on earth is pointless and it is inevitable that human actions will destroy it at a not so distant time?....so we should not discuss solutions to problems but rather discuss what will our attitudes and actions be given that we can see this inevitability?

chownah

[nameless]

Ecologists are not trying to just protect the planet, they are trying to keep it the way that humans like it. As you have said, there have been five extinction periods before, and the earth is still teeming with life. The environment has always changed, if the Earth was the way it was when it first formed, we wouldn't be around the way we are.

Does it make a difference if it is caused by humans? Isn't that statement an egotistical display of how we consider ourselves somehow separate from nature? What if animals were the ones that were causing climate change?

If a natural population of A was overeating a natural population of B so that in a certain amount of years, all the B's would be hunted to death and all the A's would starve and then die, leading to mutual extinction, should we intervene?

The reason our societies are the way they are, is because humans are they way we are. Our nature has led it to be such. It is no different from the animal who eats the last breeding pair of its only food based on its instincts. Perhaps one can say, we are above that, we can think of consequences and prevent it, and some of us do, but the fact remains that the nature of our species I suppose we can say, has caused the people who can make a difference to not want to make a difference. I guess in the end the fate of our species depends on whether, overall, enough people will try and change to prevent destruction. If we can save it, good (for humans anyway), if not, we go extinct and I suppose the world will then be healthier for not having us around to destroy it. New species will emerge, or existing species will grow to fill the void we leave, and the world goes on.

[Dhammakid]

I feel a bit helpless really, against all these vast economic and physical forces.

If it's all as hopeless as you suggest, then as a buddhist my personal response is to sit and contemplate anicca, dukkha, and anatta, and then live according to what I find in that internal space.

And also be prepared to starve to death or equanimously meet some other unpleasant, apocalyptic end.

Well, I didn't mean to say it's all hopeless, though I can see why it seemed that way. I will say, however, that there isn't much nonviolent actions can do, since this culture was built upon and cannot exists without the use of widespread violence. This civilizations was created out of violence towards innumerable indigenous peoples - taking their lands, decimating their populations and their life support systems (food, land base, etc) and then forcing modernization upon them. This culture continues to do this and nonviolence has not curbed it one single bit. So it does appear that Buddhists, because of our insistence on non-harming and non-aggression, are kind of helpless to stop the destruction of the planet.

Though I will say that maybe a nonviolent method could be the spreading of this information to people, since most people are probably not at all aware of the extent of the problem the world faces. It will be hard to get people to listen because it does sound like doomsday conspiracy babble, but it is still necessary.

mikenz66: Thanks for the sutta recommendations. I am familiar with most of them. They definitely offer good advice on how to maintain balance and harmony in society, and if only our world culture as a whole could have done these things, we probably wouldn't be in this mess right now.

Hi, Dhammakid,
All of these problems are real and urgent but I think you are tending to overstate them a bit and that brings on feelings of helplessness - not good. My own feeling is that we will sort of scrape through the concurrent crises, however much better it would have been if we had started to act a few decades earlier. People in power are in fact now changing their orientation - some quicker than others, but it is happening. And the closer the crunch, the harder people will work to avert it. Just to take one point, renewable energy:

Hi Kim,
Actually, at least compared to my sources, I am understating the extent of the problems...

You mentioned alternative energy solutions, which are actually technological solutions and have been stated as ineffective to curb the problems since technology is the cause of the problem in the first place. See this document, which explains it a lot better than I can. And actually, I recommend everyone here read it since it includes many of my sources and a very good exposition of the extent of the problem:

"How Not to Kill Most Life on this Planet: An Introduction to Radical Sustainability" by A. C. Keefer
http://zinelibrary.info/files/Radical_S ... bility.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Other sources definitely worth looking into for a better understanding include:

"What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire" a documentary film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2em1x2j9-o" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change" by William Catton
http://books.google.com/books?id=_e-Q56 ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These and other sources make it clear that technological solutions will prove, at the least, ineffective at curbing the decimation of life support systems and the runaway global warming effect enough to no longer have to worry; and, at worst, will actually contribute more to the problem because of the processes involved in utilizing these methods.

I think the extent of the problem is what makes simple nonviolent choices so ineffective. Were the problem actually political or social, then such avenues as petitions and rallies and such could prove promising. But it's not just political and social - the problem is ecological and technological. The problem has to do with the methods by which we run our civilization - the processes involved in securing the materials needed to create all of these buildings and machines.

The common definition of civilization among deep green ecologists these days: civilization is marked by the growth and pervasiveness of cities. A city: a place on the land where people live close enough to each other and using their current resources so quickly that they require the importation of resources, because they have used up most all of the resources on their current land base and thus have to go elsewhere to get them. Therefore, by these definitions, civilization itself (especially industrial civilization) is not and can never be sustainable. If states and their governments must get their resources from other places, it means they most oftentimes will have to use violence to get them because most people will not willingly give up their resources and land just because another people want them. That means the more aggressive and violent group will get the resources. This is why nonviolence simply won't work in trying to fix the fundamental problem we face.

Dhammakid,
You have requested that we accept the scenario which you presented and rather than to question its validity we should address what to do IF it is true. Does this include the assertion that "There are no technological solution to this problem"?

In otherwords are we to assume that to struggle against the destruction of the living environment on earth is pointless and it is inevitable that human actions will destroy it at a not so distant time?....so we should not discuss solutions to problems but rather discuss what will our attitudes and actions be given that we can see this inevitability?

Thanks for keeping me honest, chownah. I needed that and appreciate it. I'm not always the best debater so oftentimes I try to avoid debate while still encouraging discussion, but I guess sometimes that means I try to force people to accept my premises while discouraging them from challenging those premises, which isn't very honest nor is it conducive to healthy discussion.

Please see my sources above, all of which would say that I actually understated the problems.

I do not mean to say there are no solutions to the problem. What I will say is that the most effective means to stop the problem from getting worse are all probably outside the realm of Buddhist practice. That is to say that since world governments will not be giving up their pursuit for more technology, more war and more deforestation, we as people will probably have to participate in actions that force them to do so.

I hope I have clarified the problem and the context a bit more for everyone here.

[Dhammakid]

Ecologists are not trying to just protect the planet, they are trying to keep it the way that humans like it. As you have said, there have been five extinction periods before, and the earth is still teeming with life. The environment has always changed, if the Earth was the way it was when it first formed, we wouldn't be around the way we are.

?

How can ecologists be trying to protect the planet and keep it the way humans like it? That's a complete contradiction. The way humans like the earth (which is its current state) is what is killing the planet... Ecologists, more than anyone else, understand this, and therefore are offering up the information I provided as proof we need to change nearly everything about how we live if we have any interest at all in living on a live earth in a hundred years.

Does it make a difference if it is caused by humans? Isn't that statement an egotistical display of how we consider ourselves somehow separate from nature? What if animals were the ones that were causing climate change?

Yes, it makes a huge difference that it's humans and not other animals causing the problem, because that means that it's completely up to us to fix it, and not up to other animals. Acknowledging that we ourselves are causing the problem is not at all a display of our separation from nature, but rather an honest admittance of guilt and a pledge to fix the problem. It means that because we are intimately a part of nature as much as everything else on the planet, we have an effect on nature as much as anything else on the planet. I think you've got it backwards, dude - a denial of the problem and resorting to "well, climate change has happened before" is actually the statement of being separate from nature, because it shows that people don't believe we have any real effect on our environment.

If a natural population of A was overeating a natural population of B so that in a certain amount of years, all the B's would be hunted to death and all the A's would starve and then die, leading to mutual extinction, should we intervene?

Not necessarily. Crazy things happen in nature all the time, some of it out of our control. That doesn't mean we should intervene. BUT IF THE PROBLEM IS OUR FAULT, then yes, we should do what we can to fix it. It's really that simple. Besides, human beings are in a unique position: not only do we have the ability to live in complete harmony with the land (which we did for over 90% of our existence), but we also have the ability to benefit the land base more than many other species. We can actually give back to the land if we wanted to, in many ways (such as: intentionally keeping our population low through humane forms of contraception; being able to move and spread out so as to limit negative effects on the land; being able to consciously decide what kind farming and living techniques we will use on the land base, etc).

The reason our societies are the way they are, is because humans are they way we are. Our nature has led it to be such. It is no different from the animal who eats the last breeding pair of its only food based on its instincts. Perhaps one can say, we are above that, we can think of consequences and prevent it, and some of us do, but the fact remains that the nature of our species I suppose we can say, has caused the people who can make a difference to not want to make a difference. I guess in the end the fate of our species depends on whether, overall, enough people will try and change to prevent destruction. If we can save it, good (for humans anyway), if not, we go extinct and I suppose the world will then be healthier for not having us around to destroy it. New species will emerge, or existing species will grow to fill the void we leave, and the world goes on.

For over 90% of our existence on this planet, we humans lived in harmony with the land. We didn't domesticate animals and erode the soil through agriculture, which is inherently destructive to the land; we didn't drill for fossil fuels; we didn't vacuum the oceans; we didn't deforest nearly 95% of the world; we didn't dam rivers which caused dead zones; and we didn't extinct 200 species of animals per day.

So what about human nature again? It is not human nature; there is a stark difference between the hunter-gatherer/primitive lifestyle and the civilized lifestyle. The former never negatively impacted their land bases; the latter begun doing so with the advent of agriculture and has been doing so for 6-10 thousand years, depending on what source you use. It is not human nature to commit suicide, which is what we're doing with our current culture. According to Buddhism, it is the condition of samsara to cause suffering - I'll give you that. But that's common to all life, not just humans. Human beings took a wrong turn and now we're paying dearly for it, and every other living thing on the planet is also paying for it. If we continue thinking that it's just our nature to cause such destruction, then the situation is hopeless indeed.

Like I said before: the life support systems of the planet are being decimated. The belief that the earth will just go on after we kill ourselves is just simply false: we aren't just killing ourselves, we're also killing the very basis for life on the planet. We are extincting species at an alarming rate; we are rendering lakes, rivers and oceans incapable of supporting life; we are deforesting and damming rivers to the point where forests and rivers won't support life; and we are overshooting our population, which, as I stated earlier, reduces the original carrying capacity of that particular land base.

I understand this is sobering news. And I understand it's hard to believe that we can have such an impact on the earth. I'm no ecologist - I'm simply going by the many sources I've read and watched and discussed with others. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong on all of this, but it doesn't seem that anyone out there has been able to.

[DNS]

Capitalism often gets the blame for the ecological situation and in most cases it may be apt. But capitalism may also be the tool to get us out of the problem.

When oil and fossil fuels begin to run dry, new sources of energy will be developed at a much faster rate which will be more efficient and less polluting. Why? Because there's money in it. There are already numerous "green" businesses making windmills, electric cars, hydrogen cars and electricity, etc. because there is profit to be made.

In fact, some of the biggest problems have come when capitalism is not in use, for example, the oceans. Who owns the oceans? No one, that is why they are being over-fished to the point of the extinction of numerous species of fish. No one cares that there may not be enough left over for another fishing boat or another country. In countries where there are no agri-businesses, the people are left with subsistence farming and left to the randomness of the weather and droughts to see if they will be able to eat or not.

But no, I am not advocating a complete laissez-faire capitalism either. In some places the agri-businesses are producing things which sell for a high amount, such as flowers, while the people starve who live right next to the land that is fertile that could have been used to grow food.

There are no easy solutions, unfortunately, but I think a combination of some structural changes and the growth of green businesses and we may be able to delay the end a little longer.

[Mawkish1983]

Capitalism often gets the blame for the ecological situation and in most cases it may be apt. But capitalism may also be the tool to get us out of the problem

Interesting

[Kim OHara]

There are no easy solutions, unfortunately, but I think a combination of some structural changes and the growth of green businesses and we may be able to delay the end a little longer.

There is no single solution to the combination of problems which we have brought upon ourselves but I believe that if we throw all the partial solutions at the problems we can can avert them. Yes, it is going to be tough, but people are incredibly smart and tough when they have to be.
Part of our difficulty is that a lot of the processes - both negative and positive - are growing exponentially (see the Kurzweil Singularity thread). That tends to make significant change look as though it is a long way off until it is almost on top of us. It's why climate change is 'suddenly' an imminent catastrophe, for instance. Equally, it is why significant quantities of renewable energy seem a long way off, although they are not.

Dhammakid, I am concerned that you are so relentlessly negative about the situation, having chosen to see only the problems. Go and look in a mirror and you will see part of the solution ... if that's what you want to be. I hope you do.


Kim

[Dhammakid]

David: I hope you're right about the development of new forms of renewable energy taking precedence once oil becomes too expensive to continue use. I do think there will be a strong backlash from oil companies themselves, and that will prove hard to overcome. They've successfully killed and/or delayed mass production of various forms of alternative energy, such as the electric car, and there's no indication they won't continue to do the same. For instance, they've already begun extracting the world's dirtiest source of oil - the Alberta Tar Sands, which is now being called the most destructive project on the planet. This kind of activity will probably continue until they absolutely can't do it anymore and still stay in business. By that time, hopefully other technologies will have developed to the point of mass use. Educating the masses will continue to be of importance so the people can at least use political/social avenues to influence supply and demand of energy.

I am definitely anti-capitalist, but I'm willing to use all tactics available to help solve the problem.

KIm O'Hara: I know it seems I'm all doom-and-gloom about it all, and that might be because I kinda am. I'm trying to be honest about the problem, and not sugarcoat it, and not cling to solutions that will not prove successful in the long run. Alternative energy forms may be a quick fix, relatively speaking, and they may buy us some time, but eventually we as a world society will have to drastically change our lifestyles if we have any hope at all of a "soft landing" from collapse, so to speak.

Besides, I didn't come up with the analysis. This information is not my work - I've listed my sources, it's those people who influence my approach to the problem. I'm not saying that I'm blindly following the words of others, but I am acknowledging that there are lots of people who have spent their entire lives studying this stuff and it would benefit me to take them seriously about it. Let the harsh truth inform our actions, rather than following the myths and non-solutions society will inevitably try to convince itself of when the poop really hits the fan.

What does optimism look like, anyway, especially considering the scope of the problem? The world human population will be reduced, one way or another; we will have to start living on much much much less oil and natural gas; we will have to figure out how to slow the rate of species extinction, how to quickly resuscitate dead land bases and how to build our communities so that we don't have to travel as far to secure resources; among many other necessary projects. So what does optimism look like in our minds? Is it desperately attempting to continue our current way of life, even if that way of life is inherently unsustainable? Does it look like industry and government refusal to give up destructive extractive processes to secure resources? Or does it look like people on a mass scale finally coming to terms with the problem and doing the hard but necessary work to fundamentally change the way we live?

I guess I seem pessimistic because I just don't see people voluntarily giving up their luxuries in order to help sustain the life on the planet. I don't see a large-scale cultural shift towards sustainable lifestyles until the signs of collapse are no longer avoidable; that is, until sea levels rise several feet and hurricanes are stronger and move further inland; until war over resources and the spread of famines force people to move in large numbers; etc. I see these events as much more likely than the whole world quickly changing lifestyles. But I'm hope I'm wrong about that, I really sincerely do. I would love to see a large-scale change, I just don't think it will happen before things get really bad.

Part of our difficulty is that a lot of the processes - both negative and positive - are growing exponentially (see the Kurzweil Singularity thread). That tends to make significant change look as though it is a long way off until it is almost on top of us. It's why climate change is 'suddenly' an imminent catastrophe, for instance. Equally, it is why significant quantities of renewable energy seem a long way off, although they are not.

That's actually a good analysis, and one I've encountered a few times as I've been reading and watching films on this topic. One of the things that continually comes up is that we didn't see the negative results of our industrial activity until all of the problems started to build on top of each other and they were no longer able to be ignored. Then, all of a sudden, it was like "oh no, now we've got these problems" when we've actually had them all along, they are just compounded now and made to be much more intense because of our ignorance of them before. Let's hope this trend doesn't continue, because we definitely can't afford for it to do so.

[DNS]

Educating the masses will continue to be of importance so the people can at least use political/social avenues to influence supply and demand of energy.

I am definitely anti-capitalist, but I'm willing to use all tactics available to help solve the problem.

One of my interests has always been demographics and if you look at the population growth rates of nations, there is a definite significant pattern. The economically developed ones and those with the highest literacy rates, besides having less poverty also have the lowest population growth rates. In fact some economic super powers are actually decreasing in population. For example:

Germany -135 (average of 135 less population per day)
Japan -834

and then the economically less developed:

Ethiopia +7,716 (per day increase)
Bangladesh +5,500
Egypt +4,409

http://www.geohive.com/earth/population1.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... rowth_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we can get the impoverished nations to better economic conditions (through whatever means, capitalism, socialism, or some mix), not only will their education and literacy rates be higher, not only less famine and other problems, but also less population increases. For whatever reasons, the economically better off people tend to have less children, perhaps due to increased contraception use and loss of interest in large families.

[Jhana4]

Well, 2600 years ago there were no man-made environmental problems, but #3 & #5 apply to our modern environmental issues in a big way. Possibly #1 as well. I've read things here and there what even small conventional ( that means non-nuclear for those of you too young to remember the cold war ) wars like Iraq have some really nasty impacts on the environment.

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

1. business in weapons
2. business in human beings
3. business in meat
4. business in intoxicants
5. business in poison

From
Wrong Livliehood

Sadly, all 5 things are significantly relevant to the year 2011.

[Kim OHara]

If we can get the impoverished nations to better economic conditions (through whatever means, capitalism, socialism, or some mix), not only will their education and literacy rates be higher, not only less famine and other problems, but also less population increases. For whatever reasons, the economically better off people tend to have less children, perhaps due to increased contraception use and loss of interest in large families.

Absolutely, right, David, and I'll take it one step further: educating girls in struggling nations has been found to be the best broad-brush solution to the interconnected problems of poverty, high population growth and poor public health. It turns out that education gives girls more economic power and more control over their reproductive career, that their priorities are children's health, and that better infant health means that smaller families are desired (putting it crudely, you don't have to have lots of kids in the hope of having one or two survive long enough to look after you in your old age).
It's a win-win-win strategy and has been encouraged by several aid/philanthropic bodies. A quick search turned up http://www.unicef.org/mdg/poverty.html%20, http://www.worlded.org/WEIInternet/gwe/index.cfm and http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNA ... 86,00.html


Kim

(edit: fixed formatting)