a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
The entirety of the vegetarian position results in an anti-natalism position, else contradiction; within a context of scaling down human consumption to sustainable levels & methods, the concomitant necessity to scale back & reduce human population levels needs to be addressed.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
Agreed. Over-reproduction is an issue that few people want to talk about.daverupa wrote:The entirety of the vegetarian position results in an anti-natalism position, else contradiction; within a context of scaling down human consumption to sustainable levels & methods, the concomitant necessity to scale back & reduce human population levels needs to be addressed.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
I don't think that is the case myself. Seems to me a less resource intensive lifestyle, would not be anti-natalism. When resources are used inefficiently, there are less of them to go around, so start using them more efficiently. I don't think the vegetarian position necessarily posits scaling back consumption but a more efficient use of resources. Which is completely reasonable given the inevitable population increases to come in the future. Of course population growth takes a toll on the planet. However, it's quite difficult to stop people from having sex and making babies. In the mean time, while population growth is trying to be addressed, one should use resources in the most efficient way possible. With regards to food, this generally means eating low on the food chain, trophic level #1 for example. I believe it's a huge mistake to dismiss inefficient use of resources and only focus on population growth. To protect the planet for future generations, which will inevitably arrive, both need to be addressed. Environmentalists who enjoy eating meat a lot tend to just ignore the fact that their lifestyle uses resources inefficiently. Some of them use population growth as an excuse to deflect attention away from the fact that they aren't as green as they think they are. It's cognitive dissonance at it's finest. They say things like "The problem isn't meat, the problem is population growth!" But of course, in reality, the problem is actually both. Of course not everyone say things like that. But a lot of people do!daverupa wrote:The entirety of the vegetarian position results in an anti-natalism position, else contradiction
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
It certainly posits the scaling back of the consumption of meat. And doing that scales back consumption of resources—look at my most recent post in the veg debate thread for some of the numbers.seeker242 wrote: I don't think the vegetarian position necessarily posits scaling back consumption but a more efficient use of resources.
Sure, but it's certainly possible. The most beneficial and humane way to do this is education and income. It's a well-established trend that as people get richer and more educated, they have fewer kids. This is why statisticians predict that world population will eventually level off (see Hans Rosling's awesome talks) as average standards of living increase. Of course, increasing standards of living for a few billion more people comes at the expense of the environment and natural resources so it's kind of a catch-22, especially with our current unsustainable infinite growth model.seeker242 wrote:However, it's quite difficult to stop people from having sex and making babies.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
The population in developed countries do not increase much, but food consumption per capita continue to increase because of the kind of food they consume and the huge amount of waste.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17186
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
A vegetarian doesn't have to be an environmental activist, but an environmental activist should be a vegetarian.
The reason is that to be an environmental activist, one cannot ignore the effects of the meat industry on the environment. There was a UN report a few years back which concluded (in so many words) that one of the best things to do for the environment was to be vegetarian or vegan.
There are many reasons some choose to be vegetarian, be it the moralistic view, the environmental, the nutritional, etc. or some combination of more than one motivating factor. One can be a vegetarian solely on the moralistic position of not killing or causing to kill. How the beings came into existence is irrelevant from the moralistic view and the concern is just toward ahimsa; not killing or causing to kill.
In practice, however, I am sure most vegetarians are environmentally concerned.
The reason is that to be an environmental activist, one cannot ignore the effects of the meat industry on the environment. There was a UN report a few years back which concluded (in so many words) that one of the best things to do for the environment was to be vegetarian or vegan.
There are many reasons some choose to be vegetarian, be it the moralistic view, the environmental, the nutritional, etc. or some combination of more than one motivating factor. One can be a vegetarian solely on the moralistic position of not killing or causing to kill. How the beings came into existence is irrelevant from the moralistic view and the concern is just toward ahimsa; not killing or causing to kill.
In practice, however, I am sure most vegetarians are environmentally concerned.
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
I don't really buy that every choice needs to be meticulously calculated to yield the most "good" however quantified and the least "bad". Should it be the good - the bad or the ratio, or what?
I've shared before that my daughter, Dana, when she was 3 started asking questions about the meat and the sausages, 'where does the meat come from?', 'how come the animals are dead?' etc. It helped that a few friends who regularly visited were vegetarian and she noticed and asked. After she got it all clear in her head, she refused to eat meat. Not even her grandmother's entreaties helped. And she is still veg now that she is 8, while her brothers happily chomp on their sausages and roast. She is a sporty and bright kid, very active and spritely. Here she is a few months after she turned veg about to munch on a big piece of broccoli!
I have no doubt that this choice is right for her and both my wife and I have supported her. We also encourage her not to make a fuss over it and develop her feelings of love and care for animals and the environment.
Sometimes we overthink things and lose touch with innate compassion and humanity in an effort to be perfectly and scientifically right, IMO.
I've shared before that my daughter, Dana, when she was 3 started asking questions about the meat and the sausages, 'where does the meat come from?', 'how come the animals are dead?' etc. It helped that a few friends who regularly visited were vegetarian and she noticed and asked. After she got it all clear in her head, she refused to eat meat. Not even her grandmother's entreaties helped. And she is still veg now that she is 8, while her brothers happily chomp on their sausages and roast. She is a sporty and bright kid, very active and spritely. Here she is a few months after she turned veg about to munch on a big piece of broccoli!
I have no doubt that this choice is right for her and both my wife and I have supported her. We also encourage her not to make a fuss over it and develop her feelings of love and care for animals and the environment.
Sometimes we overthink things and lose touch with innate compassion and humanity in an effort to be perfectly and scientifically right, IMO.
_/|\_
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
I enjoyed reading about your daughter, Dan.
I loved and was unafraid of animals, and disliked eating meat when I was a child. My "I don't want to eat my friends" attitude continued until the time when I left home, went to university and became vegetarian/ vegan.
The suffering and the killing of the animals (and the fact that it seemed so bizarre to eat their bodies), was my first concern. Buddhism followed on from that, & later I became more aware of the enviromental issues.
I loved and was unafraid of animals, and disliked eating meat when I was a child. My "I don't want to eat my friends" attitude continued until the time when I left home, went to university and became vegetarian/ vegan.
The suffering and the killing of the animals (and the fact that it seemed so bizarre to eat their bodies), was my first concern. Buddhism followed on from that, & later I became more aware of the enviromental issues.
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
Hi Dave,daverupa wrote:The entirety of the vegetarian position results in an anti-natalism position, else contradiction; within a context of scaling down human consumption to sustainable levels & methods, the concomitant necessity to scale back & reduce human population levels needs to be addressed.
With respect, I disagree with your contention above that "the entirety of the vegetarian position results in an anti-Natalism position else contradiction'.
I think to a large extent it depends on motivation. And as others have said above, the motivation to adopt vegetarian behaviour can be multiple and varied. Many years ago, I lived with an Eritrean who said to me one day that he was a vegetarian for 'economic' reasons - he couldn't afford meat!
Anyway, I will be very happy for you to explain in more detail if you are happy to do so.
Kind regards,
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
Glad to hear your daughter's making such enlightened choices at a young age! I'm guessing you're on top of this, but be sure she's getting enough B12 and Vit. D.Dan74 wrote:. . .
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
Yes. But what I meant was that it's not a position that necessitates less consumption of commodities in general to the point where it becomes anti-natalistic. Seems to me to be the opposite because when resources are used most efficiently, the same amount of commodities can be produced with less strain on resources. Theoretically, the most efficient usage of resources can support a higher population, which means it does not necessitate a lower one, AKA anti-natalism. One could argue that it's more pro-natalistic, rather than anti, because it would create the conditions necessary to be able to effectively support a larger population.Mkoll wrote:It certainly posits the scaling back of the consumption of meat. And doing that scales back consumption of resources—look at my most recent post in the veg debate thread for some of the numbers.seeker242 wrote: I don't think the vegetarian position necessarily posits scaling back consumption but a more efficient use of resources.
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
I agree with almost everything you said! In my mind, its not the big families in Indian villages that are destroying the environment. Those poor people need bigger families as a way to survive and each new family member they produce would come with one mouth to feed but with two hands to produce, and generally they are moderate in their consumption and live in a harmonious way with their environment.seeker242 wrote:Yes. But what I meant was that it's not a position that necessitates less consumption of commodities in general to the point where it becomes anti-natalistic. Seems to me to be the opposite because when resources are used most efficiently, the same amount of commodities can be produced with less strain on resources. Theoretically, the most efficient usage of resources can support a higher population, which means it does not necessitate a lower one, AKA anti-natalism. One could argue that it's more pro-natalistic, rather than anti, because it would create the conditions necessary to be able to effectively support a larger population.Mkoll wrote:It certainly posits the scaling back of the consumption of meat. And doing that scales back consumption of resources—look at my most recent post in the veg debate thread for some of the numbers.seeker242 wrote: I don't think the vegetarian position necessarily posits scaling back consumption but a more efficient use of resources.
The problem lies in the so-called "consumer societies" who are not the majority in the world, but having the worst impact. This selfish behaviour is indirectly responsible of "poverty" which is one of the main causes of population growth
However, I believe that the current growth rate in population is unsustainable, especially when we understand what "exponential growth" means, so regardless how efficient we use our recourses, and how innovative we come up with new technologies to produce more food in less space, sooner or later we will have to face the reality.
One of the simple yet excellent examples that illustrate exponential growth is the "bacteria jar" it wont take more than three minutes
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/e ... rowth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
I guess I'm using the term less strictly than y'all are using it, or maybe just plain wrongly because I'm not quite sure of the exact definition. I'm using it in the sense of "supportive of small family planning" rather than a philosophical position. I'm not "anti human birth" which is a ludicrous notion that nevertheless may be implied by the words. Middle way between pro and anti, anyone?seeker242 wrote:Yes. But what I meant was that it's not a position that necessitates less consumption of commodities in general to the point where it becomes anti-natalistic. Seems to me to be the opposite because when resources are used most efficiently, the same amount of commodities can be produced with less strain on resources. Theoretically, the most efficient usage of resources can support a higher population, which means it does not necessitate a lower one, AKA anti-natalism. One could argue that it's more pro-natalistic, rather than anti, because it would create the conditions necessary to be able to effectively support a larger population.Mkoll wrote:It certainly posits the scaling back of the consumption of meat. And doing that scales back consumption of resources—look at my most recent post in the veg debate thread for some of the numbers.seeker242 wrote: I don't think the vegetarian position necessarily posits scaling back consumption but a more efficient use of resources.
Sorry for the confusion.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
Precisely correct.Bundokji wrote:... regardless how efficient we use our recourses, and how innovative we come up with new technologies to produce more food in less space, sooner or later we will have to face the reality.
This means addressing the problems of nation-states, economics, international politics, blah blah blah, on and on, yes of course... but the core issue isn't any of those things, even though they're essential and unavoidably important. The core issue, the one upon which all other human effort rests, is this very issue of population growth vs. limited space.
If this issue isn't solved, every other solution is a moved deck chair on the Titanic.
---
In the OP I said "an anti-natalism position"; there are variations here with respect to scaling back population, eliminating human presence over time or not, etc. But as a class of arguments, they are a necessary result given the set of motives that innervate ethical (rather than e.g. economic) vegetarianism.
(But please note: even the economic argument will, eventually, have to address the anti-/natalism issue as it pertains to inflation, costs of production as resource depletion continues, etc.)
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: a veggie/anti-natalism tangent
Yes, "technological fixes" have never been seen by environmental scientists as great solutions. However, I don't believe addressing population growth and efficiency in using resources, are mutually exclusive. The most complete way to address the issue, is to do both, at the same time!Bundokji wrote:
However, I believe that the current growth rate in population is unsustainable, especially when we understand what "exponential growth" means, so regardless how efficient we use our recourses, and how innovative we come up with new technologies to produce more food in less space, sooner or later we will have to face the reality.