Buddhism, extinction and non-attachment
This is a thought that occurred to me the other day, with the news that 1 in 4 species is in danger of extinction. I’m wondering what principled motivation Buddhists have for saving an individual species, given non-attachment? While there are engaged Buddhist movements that suggest the ecological “Web of Life” is a way of seeing pratitya-samutpada in the environment, I’m not convinced. This could be a new application of Buddhist philosophy, but I certainly don’t see it as a necessary one.
Yes, there are the injunctions about non-violence and avoiding harm. Still, when faced with a particular species, whose days seem to be numbered, regardless of any effort humans can muster, could a Buddhist response be to let the being slip into extinction and not to induce suffering by keeping a few representative beings cooped up in zoos? While this could easily be twisted into an incitement to apathy, the horror of extinction seems to incite clinging.
Any thoughts?
October 9th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I think an orthodox Buddhist (if such a creature exist) would say that the demise of a species isn’t going to make any difference in terms of the overall suffering in the universe since the transmigrating consciousness of the dying being who would be reborn as that species will simply be reborn elsewhere (perhaps not even on the planet earth). On a karmic level, the disregard for other species’ well-being can’t be a good thing.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“…regardless of any effort humans can muster…” Actually, we could make the environment the priority it should be for the well being of all sentient life - but we won’t, not until things get much worse.
I guess the question becomes whether keeping an animal supply, so to speak, is clinging or having the compassion to bring the species back if we ever regain environmental conditions that would allow for it.
But the whole “zoo” concept to me is a negative. A more animal-centered way of keeping members of other species alive in a humane way - that would be preferable.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:40 am
I was very struck by this thought when I read Ishmael. And, if you could frame it in terms of compassion to bring the species back to the necessary conditions, what does non-attachment do to that? I saw a bumper sticker the other day (which was rare in the South), “Darwin loves you”, and I’m not sure Darwin cares one way or the other about me, but I’d really like to hear a dialogue between Darwin and Buddha.
October 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hmmm. Well as a member of the Network of Engaged Buddhists my own path is that I care tremendously about what happens to this planet and all her inhabitants (’com-passion’). This means that I don’t personally seek a quietist approach, but instead take every opportunity to draw attention to the suffering of other beings through non-violent direct action, communication, education &c.
For me, the non-attachment bit comes in by not clinging on to what I see as being right for me to do as being the only absolute truth. In other words, I do what feels right for me and try and let go of needing to control the outcome.
There is no easy answer, is there?
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Yes, this is certainly an interesting question/issue. Since the whole point of “Buddhism” is (or, at least should be) awareness/seeing things as they really are, it is always wise to ask ourselves why we can’t let go, whether it’s a relative, a lover, fear, anger, and even the “do-gooder liberal” attitudes many of us were raised with concerning “the horror of extinction.” I’m not sure I see the “horror” in extinction. Rather, it’s a natural part of life, of evolution and natural selection; and it’s happened countless times to countless “species” long before humans came along to cause mischief.
It’s difficult for many “liberals” to admit that most of the so-called “compassion” we have for others really comes from our own ego-based selfish desires. This is very hard for us to admit. And yet, it’s so important to recognize these truths about ourselves, our clinging, and our motivations. Ego, ego, ego. If it comes from our ego, then it should be heartily questioned, even if it’s what we think is “love” or “compassion.” What do these things really mean? Those who have the guts to really dig into that question will find that things are not as simple as they might like to believe. For example: is love the same thing as enabling? Is it compassionate to hold onto someone out of “love,” say, someone who is dying; or someone who needs to move on/forward in a way we are not ready to deal with, and so on? What is love? What is compassion? Do not rest on conditioned assumptions and certainties.
It is also important to remember that (true) non-attachment contains neither aversion, nor “disregard.” Would the Buddha stand there and watch someone beat a child? I seriously doubt it. And if that’s the case, then must ask: why not?
Where is the line between “compassion,” and selfish desire?
Great issues for exploration.