Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Spirituality, Economics and Nature
The United States lags the world in responding to climate change. Guardian columnist George Monbiot points out that as the scientific consensus grows, skeptics gain ground. Though I find the consensus persuasive, science probably won’t win this argument. Social and religious values play a big a role.
Environmentalists’ precautionary principle suggests that if there is dispute as to the cause of global warming we err on the side of caution by reducing carbon emissions. Some critics pose a challenging response: President Bush could have cited the principle to invade Iraq as the prudent response to murky evidence.
Of course, Bush’s perception of Iraq was filtered through his ideological-religious lenses. Nonetheless, all of us understand threats in terms of some fundamental perspective. If one is convinced that free-market-driven growth solves any problem, that government bureaucrats seek power or screw up, then taxes or regulation entail disproportionate risk. The cautious course is not to intervene.
As environmental tragedy unfolds, the tendency may paradoxically be to cling all the more to the conventional course. The Exxon Valdez brought us only double-hulled tankers to import oil more safely. The gulf crisis may effect only modest rig regulation.
For much of mainstream culture, a quasi-religious perspective also colors this debate. Following sociologist Ernest Becker, Monbiot suggests: “The fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with ‘vital lies’ or ‘the armour of character.’ We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death.”
Belief in a nature that can be fully understood as lawlike and manipulated to serve growing prosperity reinforces and is reinforced by market fundamentalism. Together these have constituted our predominant immortality project.
Some today reject treating nature as mere things. Many young evangelical Christians now view “dominion” over nature as demanding responsible stewardship. Some Greens regard nature as a realm of providential harmony to which we must accommodate ourselves. These are valuable interventions, but for me the views are too static, make too little contact with modern science, and fail to provide and encourage sufficient motivation for ethical action.
What if our world is enchanted, not in the sense of God acting in and through nature or merely in terms of our cultural attitudes toward nature? In “Vibrant Matter,” Jane Bennett defines enchantment as referring “to a mood or current circulating between human bodies and the animal, vegetable and mineral forces they encounter. Enchantment is associated with the feeling of being simultaneously fascinated and unnerved in the presence of something truly wild or Other. The point here is that enchantment is not so much a belief as it is an energetic current produced by the encounter between two sets of active materialities, one set congealed into a ‘self’ and one into what is often called the ‘objects of experience’ but is better described, I think, as a set of nonhuman ‘actants.’”
Bennett never denies the existence of regularities at certain times and across certain domains. She does reject our hubristic assumption that all of nature all the time serves us through such discoverable regularities. Her perspective, like belief in a lawlike or providential nature, cannot be proved. Nonetheless, she adduces much respected science, including complexity theory and evolutionary biology, that can be read in this light.
Nature itself may not be fully amenable to our purposes, but attunement to its capacity for agency is an already latent sensitivity that can be nurtured in many of us. It can enhance our lives. We become more alert to tragic possibilities. Complex, maxed-out electric grids that depend on electrons always behaving or far-flung energy technologies demanding intricate human skills, predictable tides and weather, and full knowledge and control of oceans and their rocky floor may induce more wariness.
Attunement to nature’s vicissitudes has a positive register as well. It can make us more attentive and responsive to such mundane artistry as rainbows, distinctive crystal formations, and to the miracle of human life itself. Such experiences can give us the motive and the energy to limit destructive growth. An adequate response to climate change may need to address not only science but controversial political and spiritual issues as well.
- Posted in
168 Comments so far
Show All"The United States lags the world in responding to climate change."
Is Mr. Buell factoring China, India, etc. in what he considers to be "the world"?
In a field of 200 runners doing the Marathon , any of the final 20 or 30 can be said to be lagging behind the leaders.
being second from last does not mean you are leading the pack or in the middle of the pack. It means you are lagging.
Given that the vast majority of Countries (a Botswana as example) add little to Global warmig , then the statement accurate.
You at least try to define "the world" with your race analogy where Buell did not. But by focusing in on only 10% of the field I think you miss. By way of your analogy the world should = the feild.
Regardless you don't seem to be very interested at all in these developing nations that are not beholden to any treaties regarding their pollutants, and the fact that they add up to a significant portion of what we call "the world".
"..developing nations that are not beholden to any treaties regarding their pollutants, and the fact that they add up to a significant portion of what we call "the world"."
That's totally absurd.
If you are going to make statements like that, you better footnote your work with reliable references.
Actually no, it would be up to *you* to show why China and India et al are beholden to any regulations regarding their emmissions, and to then pretend in public that they don't make up a large portion of global emmissions and GDP and population and landmass area and any other criteria you would dream up. Those countries and many other similar developing countries are not signatories to Kyoto or anything similar. They are just free to emit and pollute as they see fit, in our proxy of course. That's the Elephant in the Room as they say.
I'll make us some popcorn while you come up with that...
China relaeses 4.91 tons/person of CO2
India releases 1.31 tons/person of CO2
The United Staes relaeses 19.18 tons/person of CO2
That is, on a per capita basis, which is the only valid way to measure output,
The US releases a little over 93% more CO2 that India and around 74.5% more CO2 that China.
So yea both China and India make up a proportianally smaller portion of CO2 emmisions that the US.
The popcorn you are making is popped with coal energy, grown with natural gass fertilizer,
Harvested with oil, shipped to the store with oil, and you used oil to go to the store and bring it home. Also the store itself and your home is lit up like a christmas tree with coal energy. Thats why the US is second most CO2 producing nation on earth.
That's the Elephant in the Room as they say !
I was wrong about China and India not being signatories for Kyoto and I apologize for that.
"That is, on a per capita basis, which is the only valid way to measure output,"
According to *you* the only valid way? Never mind that these are developing countries (emmissions will only increase) who pollute as a proxy for nations that import their goods? And you are only talking about CO2.
China is now the second largest worls economy, with the second largest CO2 emmissions as would be expected, and you are just happy that the Kyoto protocols apply quite differently to them I guess. The issue was Buell's sentence "The United States lags the world in responding to climate change.". How would you characterize China's "response to climate change"?
The 2007 carbon emissions reports have listed China as surpassing the US with India getting closer. I have yet to find a 2008 or 2009 report on the latest on emissions.
Total i assume, not per capita?
Ooops, you're right. But how long will they sit back on that? If they wanna change their life styles, wouldn't they be catching up on the US even on a per capita basis? According to the news, everyone there is modernizing so I'd assume that the demand for fossil fuels won't go down in those places.
And if the terms of Kyoto were in play they would be allowed to increase even more evidently.
I am sure some here would want them to drastically cut their population anyway, that would boost the per capita rate equally dramatically all else equal.
I didn't know Kyoto was that bad. No wonder it fell apart like a house of cards in the senate.
"That is, on a per capita basis, which is the only valid way to measure output,"
And if we went with per capita as you would wish for considering how much of "the world" China makes up, that would drag down the average "response to climate change" even further, but I would be willing to consider that you do that by GDP instead of claiming it was the only valid way.
Here's a chart of "the world" by population:
(http://empireoflove.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/World_population_pie_chart.PNG)
jakenewton, are you in some kind of a sleeper cell for the denial industry that gets activated when there is an article on climate change? I'm going to call your bluff here. First, I'll start by calling your knowledge ***AND*** your intentions into question for making these statements in your comments:
>>"..developing nations that are not beholden to any treaties regarding their pollutants, and the fact that they add up to a significant portion of what we call "the world"<<
>>"Those countries (China, India) and many other similar developing countries are not signatories to Kyoto or anything similar."<<
I hope you have your popcorn ready. Since I have no friggin' doubt that you are either lying without any basis or deliberately spreading falsehood, I'm just going to copy/paste relevant portions from Wikipedia and other online sources, as I don't feel like honoring your lies with a well thought-out reply.
So, here's the "List of Kyoto Protocol signatories":
"As of October 2009, 187 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, aimed at combating global warming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories
China and India are both original members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - which became operational in March 1994. They both signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, along with a whole lot of other countries. They both ***ratified*** the treaty in 2002. So, your first lie is shot down. Don't even bother to weasel out of this one.
The ***only*** country that is a member of the UNFCCC, that has "Signed but not intending to ratify" the Kyoto Protocol is the USA.
The Kyoto Protocol was based on the principle of ***"Common but differentiated responsibility"*** - a principle that was accepted by ***ALL*** the parties ("Conference of the Parties" or COP is an annual meeting of all countries that are party to the UNFCCC, and that is practically all the countries of the world, including the USA). According to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", the parties agreed that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
** "the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries";
** "per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;"
** "the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet social and development needs".
So, as per this principle, ALL parties agreed that China, India and a whole bunch of other developing countries are permitted to increase their carbon emissions up to a point.
The GHG gases in the atmosphere all ***did not*** originate in the last year, or even in the last two decades. The concentration of these gases has been increasing for the last 150 years or more, and don't even bother to contest the point about whose share is the greatest during this period.
The Kyoto treaty itself was an agreement to cut a modest amount of GHG emissions:
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
"The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012."
There are classifications of countries that have signed the treaty into Annex-I and Annex-II and others, with some overlap between these categories.
The commitments for the developing countries were to be decided at the COP-15 meeting at Copenhagen last year. However, in the negotiations preceding the meeting, it became clear to everyone that some of the rich countries were not going to commit to any meaningful cuts in their emissions, with the biggest polluter not even ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. And because USA did not ratify, Canada - which both signed and ratified - decided it was going to abandon its commitments too. Australia, which signed the treaty but did not ratify it, finally did so during the COP-13 meeting at Bali in 2007. Germany alone cut its emissions by more than 20% below 1990 levels, so that EU as a whole is on target to meeting its commitments under the Kyoto treaty. But these countries messed up the Copenhagen meeting. Overall, there was a well-organized sabotaging done at Copenhagen, including by the shameless host country, Denmark.
If you do not accept the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", or do not accept ***ANY*** kind of responsibility, that is your choice. But if you are going to come back with more falsehoods, be prepared to be called on them.
"I hope you have your popcorn ready. "
No I threw it out, I'll eat crow for being wrong on the Kyoto signatory issue.
The issue is "response to climate change" as mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Are you impressed in any way by the response by China and similar, considering what slice of the term "the world" they constitute?
jakenewton, considering the magnitude of the "response" in the USA, I would say that China and India indeed have initiated certain steps in expanding their renewable energy capacity even when legally not required to do so. India is also trying to increase its nuclear power capacity precisely because it needs to start replacing some of its coal power capacity. And you really cannot get away from the per capita argument by pointing to their population without getting into some inconvenient historical reminders about Europeans filling three whole CONTINENTS and all that.
The reason that countries like China, India, South Africa, etc., did not commit to any legally binding limits was a direct result of the failure of the USA to meet its earlier, modest targets under Kyoto. This is simply unforgivable because the 1990's and later saw a lot of manufacturing moved out of the USA and there was simply no logical reason for the carbon emissions to go up, other than the fact that people continued consuming like there was no tomorrow. Certain forms of wasteful consumption, certain types of "entertainment" and "leisure activities" and certain types of vehicles are found ***only*** in the USA, Canada and Australia. And when you add in the emissions and the ecological footprint and the water footprint that's a result of manufacturing for the USA under its account, the numbers for China and USA will look even more skewed.
The reasons that American obstinacy is unforgivable are many.
First of all, it is the largest polluter, both per capita and in absolute terms. Even historically, it should be either the largest or within the top two, along with Britain. When we are talking of atmospheric concentration of CO2, it is a dishonest attempt to neglect the historical emission levels, as what see today is a ***cumulative*** effect. The atmosphere **does not** reset every year. So naturally, those who have trashed the most should start picking up the trash ***first***. Most countries saw this logic in the 1990's and that is how the Kyoto Protocol came into being in the first place.
And based on certain other realities such as the relative capacities to take action, Germany committed to meeting the bulk of the emission reduction load for the EU countries (over 20% below 1990 levels, so that EU as a whole could claim about 5-6% reduction below 1990 levels, by 2012). It is also for some similar reason to address "reality" that Australia was allowed to **increase** its emissions above 1990 levels, even while meeting its "quota" under Kyoto. I repeat - this is called the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", and one really has to question the intentions of those who would deny such an elementary logic.
The other major, major reason why the US inaction is unforgivable is because it acts as a cover for other big polluters to refuse to meet their commitments under Kyoto, such as Canada, citing a common market. Japan too will fall short of its targets.
More importantly, during the last few years, even the European countries have decided to hold back on their commitments for post-Kyoto, that is, post-2012, as a direct result of the failure of the US and its continuing arrogance on this count.
And as the cascading of obfuscation spreads, countries like China, India, South Africa and Brazil - have decided to adopt only voluntary measures until the richer countries show they are serious about tackling climate change. Even though these countries have certain leeway under the UNFCCC and Kyoto treaty to increase their emissions, serious, but still modest, action by the USA would have put pressure on every damn country in the world when they got to Copenhagen.
Thus the USA is not only the biggest polluter, it is also the biggest spoiler of action by other countries. If you are not a paid poster for the denial industry, I really want you to ask yourself: why oh why are you continuing to repeat the same point about China and India, forgetting the historical emissions, the cumulative nature of the concentration of GHG gases and most importantly the continuing obfuscation of the USA? You need not answer me - just try to answer to yourself, but truthfully :)
Excellent points!
"jakenewton, considering the magnitude of the "response" in the USA, I would say that China and India indeed have initiated certain steps in expanding their renewable energy capacity even when legally not required to do so. India is also trying to increase its nuclear power capacity precisely because it needs to start replacing some of its coal power capacity."
And you know of course why we have no new nuclear plants in the US. I'm not impressed by China and India signing up for something that doesn't reduce their emmissions.
"And you really cannot get away from the per capita argument by pointing to their population without getting into some inconvenient historical reminders about Europeans filling three whole CONTINENTS and all that."
I am fully aware that there are different reasons to select one basis of comparison over another. I was trying to make a point to a different poster who said there was only on valid for carbon emmissions.
"The reason that countries like China, India, South Africa, etc., did not commit to any legally binding limits was a direct result of the failure of the USA to meet its earlier, modest targets under Kyoto. "
Opinion. Ignores the obvious possibility that they could have acted completely independently from how the US did. Doesn't support Buell's line. And I would be shocked if you said that reaction impressed you.
You make other points that we may agree on, but this idea that the US is behind "the world" is dubious, if all they are going to do is take our lead anyway.
"If you are not a paid poster for the denial industry,"
I have challenged this idea numerous times and never got a taker. Explain the business plan that justifies paying anyone to post in the public comments section of this forum. The most interesting thing is what you figure my compensation arrangement is. :-)
C'mon George, the game is over. We are already past the tipping point. Humanity failed! All that is possible now is the destruction of the old and a rebirth of the new. Wake up !
"Nature itself may not be fully amenable to our purposes, but attunement to its capacity for agency is an already latent sensitivity that can be nurtured in many of us."
Say what? It's hard to connect this sentence with anything in my experience.
It certainly is a mouthful, isn't it. Reminds me of my Medicare and Med Advantage books that make simple instructions impossible for an old, failing mind to grasp. Guess I'll drag out my dictionary and see if I can put the whole thing in simpler terms.
Yes, that sentence could be / should be simplified. But unlike legalese or political obfuscation, that sentence actually has meaning, at least to me. I would say "Nature itself is indifferent to human purposes, but we can respect it and nurture our understanding of its power and value."
Joe
I agree, I agree, I agree, I agree. Humans need to get back into the Garden of Eden, to reclaim that innocence and awe of Nature, to see ourselves as part of the web. I do agree. And I don't need LSD to grasp the urgency of the debate.
But it seems to be that for the hundreds of millions of people facing extreme climate upheaval, severe poverty, civil war, multiple military gang rape, political oppression - the list is endless - for these people such pretty words are worse than useless, they are dangerous. For these people there is no "enchantment" - there is raw survival.
That extremism is sweeping closer and closer to Bastion Europe and Fortress America. Writing pretty words is akin to throwing rose petals from the battlements of a beseiged castle.
I almost think we need to stop talking altogether. It sounds a ghastly thing to say. Completely counter-intuitive. But when we create abstract nouns to compartmentalise the enormity of life, we continue our woeful "disconnect". We need to start feeling. Not intellectualising about things of which we have no first hand experience. Oh damn - I am doing exactly what I am saying we shouldn't be doing.
words are a huge problem...used much more often to deceive and manipulate than to enlighten, or assist...
local food and water are key...chemicals and climate are working against us...we need to reduce our chemical impact, and begin growing local vegetation, edible and non, all over the place...fuck lawns and parking lots...
while this article is written a bit too far above ground for me, the premise of humans, and nature, having energies that communicate without words, without conscious recognition, is no mystery to my being...
if I could grab heads and direct brains, I would force people to look down to the ground upon which they stand, and begin their thinking there...
why does this ground belong to a bank, and how does that affect what's going on around here? what if the ground didn't belong to the bank? what if food doesn't come from a store? how would these things be? what if I interacted with my neighbors every day, rather than simply slept 30 yards from them for 60 years, then died without ever meeting them?
I try to leave the chemical thing aside, but all other plans and considerations are vulnerable to chemical corruption...we simply cannot continue to indulge our affinity for chemicals, neither the processes nor products involving...
spiritual change required? absolutely...physical barrier to such? private land...
peace, onemantribe
"I try to leave the chemical thing aside, but all other plans and considerations are vulnerable to chemical corruption...we simply cannot continue to indulge our affinity for chemicals, neither the processes nor products involving..."
*Everything* is made of chemicals. Please pass the sodium chloride.
yes, Jake, everything is made of chemicals...
the point is that humans are bringing new, manufactured chemicals into the environment, and actively changing which chemicals make up which things...
sadly, chemicals, as biological and ecological requirements, are not interchangeable...
I have some confidence and hope that "spirituality", that often cheapened word, can combine with intellect to address environmental problems. You have to love something, know somethng, before you will fight to protect it.
The farmers of Haiti challenging Monsanto, the Bolivians who stood up for their water rights, the indigenous people of India, who refused to let industry drive them from their land and way of life, are people who have combined a spiritual connection with nature, with culture and with a deep intellectual grasp of the consequences of destroying traditional ways. By refusing to be driven off their lands into cities, where nothing good awaits them, by refusing to be prohibited from growing things and drinking their own water, they are fighting against both poverty and for the health of the earth.
Simplicity sometimes cuts through a lot of BS. It is we who are so brainwashed with worshipping "growth", technology and reckless development who more often fail to integrate love and reason.
Joe
"You have to love something, know somethng, before you will fight to protect it."
Amen, the case in a nutshell!
Great post!
yes, jclientelle, great line...
interesting, especially, given our relatively recent social separation from the natural world...doesn't bode well...how to increase the general population's connection to nature?
one can hope that a great spiritual reuniting will occur between the human animal and the living world, once physical connection is returned...if not too late...
what do folks love enough to fight for?
Re: "I have some confidence and hope that "spirituality", that often cheapened word, can combine with intellect to address environmental problems."
Lol, yeah right. "Spirituality" will work with intellect to address environmental problems. Would have happened a long time ago dude.
Re: "You have to love something, know somethng, before you will fight to protect it."
But you can profess to love something, know something, but still not fight to protect it.
'But you can profess to love something, know something, but still not fight to protect it."
Yeah, Shawn, but the point is, if you do not love something, you will not fight to protect it.
But if you lie about loving something you really don't like, you won't defend it either. honest.
Perhaps that is how one can tell the difference between what one truly loves and what is only pretending to love - whether or not one will fight for it ....
"The point here is that enchantment is not so much a belief as it is an energetic current produced by the encounter between two sets of active materialities, one set congealed into a ‘self’ and one into what is often called the ‘objects of experience’ but is better described, I think, as a set of nonhuman ‘actants.’”"
Yeah, that's what we need, more fact and evidence-based talk like this to deal with the simple laws of physics we're killing ourselves with. Bring it on.
Someone send this Buell guy a copy of Jeff Bates' book, Writing With Precision. 'Cause he ain't.
John Buell concludes: "An adequate response to climate change may need to address not only science but controversial political and spiritual issues as well."
This is true. An adequate response to climate change will not happen until all the major world religions come on board. Social/political scientists have concluded that an essential ingredient to any radical social change is a spiritual message. Even the World Watch Institute recognises this essential element of spirituality for radical social change.
But before any of this can happen, Christianity in the U.S. must mature. Christian fundamentalism totally reflects the incredible immaturity of Christianity. However, there is something happening in Christianity. It is the Emerging Christianity Movement that is trying to bring maturity to Christianity, but presently it is only a faint hope. It is not a new denomination but an ecumenical movement.
I know that many liberal/progressives on CD are turned off by any mention of religion or spirituality. But for those who are not, please allow me to quote three paragraphs from Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr's commentary on Emerging Christianity that points to the problem of the human ego that is the root cause of the immaturity of present day Christianity. Richard Rohr is the director of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, NM.
I know this posting is rather long, but please consider it a contribution to much needed diversified thought on the CommonDreams website.
DAILY REFLECTIONS ON EMERGING CHRISTIANITY BY RICHARD ROHR
At a conference I attended a physician asked me: “Do you know that the heart has a brain? There are 30,000 neurons surrounding the heart? And the electrical field of the head brain is only one tenth the size of the heart’s electric field?” I said no, and he told me more. “This makes the heart area the biggest “oscillator” and the biggest oscillator in any system always excites and determines the energy of all the other oscillations in the body.” Wow! I am sure you see the immense implication for spirituality.
When we said that prayer was bringing “the mind down to the heart” maybe we thought that was mere sentiment. Now we know what is really happening in true contemplation or non dual thinking. Non-dualistic thinking is foundational to any notion of emerging Christianity. If this foundation is not firmly laid, any new “Emerging Christianity” will end up again dividing between conservative, liberal, feminist, gay, straight, rich, poor, and will largely continue to mirror the secular culture. We just don’t have time for this anymore.
When our brain is separated from our heart we will invariably think dualistically, because we ourselves are split. The last 500 years, when we came to rely upon printed words for truth, rational thinking was idealized into what we ironically call “The Enlightenment” (largely beginning in the18th century). This period separated the mind from the heart rather totally, and we might add, since this time war has been almost non stop, and Christianity began to divide into all head people or all heart people, as we often still have today. Both lose half of the picture.
When the human person is split, we find ourselves either in a “war culture”—or in the culture wars that we have in America today—or both. It seems we have to hate somebody or something when we cannot resolve the contradictions that are everywhere—first of all within ourselves. As Jesus said, “the lamp of the body is the eye” (Luke 11:34). And the eye sees most truthfully when it looks out from that place where the mind and the heart are one.
We thought that we overcame racism in the 60’s; we thought the church overcame triumphalism at Vatican II, and now forty years later we are right back into this regressive and dualistic thinking all over again. This is the nature of the ego if we have not formed a contemplative mind, a big mind, that sees everything together, with the eyes of God. I predict, with some historical certainty, this judgmental thinking will continue to happen in every group, in every denomination if we see everything with a dualistic mind. No new emerging church will emerge very far.
The judgmental mind is not looking for truth; it is looking for control and righteousness. For some reason when we split and refuse to receive the moment as it is, we end creating and even reveling in those splits as our very identities. These are the culture wars and the identity politics we suffer from today. They will not get us very far spiritually, because they are largely ego-based.
And what does all this religious blither and blather have to do with actually solving the real-world problems of mitigating and surviving global warming? Oh, yeah, right: Absolutely nothing. If you're not going to contribute to workable, physical, material solutions, then get the hell out of the way. All the junk spirituality the religionists throw up into the air doesn't do a damn bit of good against the physics of global warming. It just clutters up the process, slows things down, and encourages pathetic, ludicrous, useless responses like praying and beating drums and sacrificing goats.
I'm as "boots on the ground" as you appear to be, ricg. Yet I think that Stephen does have a point. The reason that the planet is so trashed by poisons and war is because unenlightened people have acted out of greed, hatred and ignorance. And as the poster ClassAct points out, that is what the Buddhists have been saying all along. Yet these truths aren't unique to Buddhism, as the Buddhists themselves would be the first to admit. If the Christians are trying to reach the same truths and the same goal, that's great. If we can change minds and hearts to some degree, then we can change the external world. A small example: A few years ago smoking was a widely accepted habit that was viewed as harmless. Now that "ignorance" has been dispelled and we have changed our habits so that we either don't smoke, or we don't smoke around babies, kids, etc. I've spent my life trying to work for change in the external world, and it has been pretty clear to me that unless people develop a more "enlightened" self interest,realizing that the common good is their own highest good, nothing else is going to change much.
Yea, I also am not much into spiritual blither blather either. I simply don't understand why you need spiritual or religious "values" to do the right thing concerning the planet and environment. A dog kept in a small pen is smart enough not to crap in it. I doubt he is being religious or spiritual about it, he just realizes you need to keep the place you live clean.
Why do we as a humans require a god to make us understand this?
we don't...
we require a god to make us understand why we're in a small pen, at all...
god keeps us from breaking out...
It's not "god" that keeps us there, it is our refusal to go beyond the concepts of "god" that organized religion has foisted on us .....
I agree...
NC-Tom, I agree with you. We don't require a god to understand this. It is simply a fact that the common good is also in the deepest sense the highest individual good. Buddhism is a kind of non-religion in that way, as I understand it. The Buddhists say not to accept any of this "on faith" but to go out into the world and test it empirically.
Why do we as a humans require a god to make us understand this?
I'm an atheist but I understand things well. Some humans just use god or goddess to control and hate.
Religions, at least since patriarchy, have been mainly warrior religions. But there is a connection to nature and understanding of the sacredness of life itself beyond reductionist anthropomorphic religion that this author is trying to get to. Understanding nature as alive and purposeful in itself disallows the view the Judao Christian religions have taken that nature is to be there for mans use, rather like women, in that same tradition. Communism also took a utilitarian view of nature. We do need the re-enchantment of the world to live sustainably not just a techno-fix. See Ynestra King's work for more on this theme.
Would this "maturity" be Christians claiming Buddhist virtues? Why not just become Buddhists instead?
They are not solely Buddhist values but of the early Christian mystics as well. The age of enlightenment pulled the church away from mystical values which are now being reclaimed in a more prophetic and contemplative faith. Granted though, the Trappist Monk Thomas Merton was accused by the church of embracing Buddhist thought.
Perhaps it was Jesus, some centuries after the Buddha, who was the first "christian" to "adopt" Buddhist thought ....?
I think you could be right about that, I have heard it said before. Christ could had traveled to the East prior to his ministry.
Actually, i wasn't thinking so much of a direct student/teacher type relationship, more of a development or convergence or simply a "similar circumstance, similar response" of the type Karen Armstrong describes in her "The Great Transformation" (the ? spiritual equivalent to Polanyi's book of the same name?)
Hey, Steven!
I like this:
The judgmental mind is not looking for truth; it is looking for control and righteousness. For some reason when we split and refuse to receive the moment as it is, we end creating and even reveling in those splits as our very identities. These are the culture wars and the identity politics we suffer from today. They will not get us very far spiritually, because they are largely ego-based.