how do we escape from the antropocentric belief/risk?

[eumeme]

Certainly I quite agree - in my most spiritual phases, conflict is regarded as ultimately unnecessary and without purpose.
(......)
Although there are different ways of expressing such views, ultimately a point remains - a spiritual truth, if you will - that we are all equal. If people claim to be spiritual, but advocate against spiritual equality, IMO it is like self-claimed peace activists taking to throwing petrol bombs.
(......)

i believe that the concept of superiority in itself it's doomed and possibly the cause of great suffering for Life.

the myth that this planet is own by the human race stem from the same superiority concept.
the idea that in few million years other animal species like dolphins or gorillas could develop other conscious intelligences is not even contemplated.
it's our planet and we do what we want with it. we are humans: we know it all!

if a lifeform is not human then it hasn't got many rights - unless it is food or food for our food or a pet.

i believe that san francesco d'assisi (st. francis) love for all creatures would be a proper humble and modern way of expressing spirituality that considers all Life (and non-Life) at the same level.

...
Laudato si', mi Signore, per sora nostra matre Terra,
la quale ne sustenta et governa,
et produce diversi fructi con coloriti fior et herba.
...
(Cantico delle Creature - St. Francis - written in the year 1262)

when he speaks about earth he says "our mother earth" and not "our earth".

if earth is our mother then all lifeforms born from earth are our brothers and sisters and we should be careful in not taking away their natural rights to exist as a lifeform.

I believe that our real uniqueness is to be the first self-aware being on earth - this should give us not less but more responsibility toward other lifeforms: we have to make decision for all Life on earth, not just for human greedy interests. it should be like being the elder, mature brother caring for his younger siblings.

unfortunately the trend I've seen in recent years is quite the opposite: we aren't making any progress on the kyoto agreement: the current mythology followed by politicians is that mankind owns the planet and come first along with its food and pets.

and so we keep taking more space for our food to grow (more animals, more farming) and we destroy the ecosystem for other animal and plants that -unfortunately (!) for them - haven't got the luck to be on our food list.

and we keep growing in number: the 2050 population will be between 7.7 and 11.2 billion individuals (median estimate 9.4 billion!).

a good father and a good mother would know that they wouldn't be able to raise a family with 100 kids with the limited resources they can bring home - but here we are - such an intelligent race but so full of ourself to fill the entire planet with our dirt (thanx to our modern life we produce much more dirt than other lifeforms) and forget that our resources are limited too.

as a consequence we can easily anticipate wars and famine among humans and and Life Death (i mean extinction of millions of species)...
...and the trouble is that we'll keep growing even after 2050.

if we don't do something to preserve Life Diversity we'll probably undermine even the mankind life - we are all connected through the food chain - we shouldn't forget that.

in my opinion this is the century central problem/project - from what I'm aware very few people are doing something about it - and many religions try to keep the mankind growing indefinitely. (probably the religion inconscious/storical reason is to enlarge the number of their followers...)

when do we stop growing then?

what religions can do to stop the human invasion and allow us to respect our siblings lifeform life - i.e. leaving some resources to them?

what does your religion say to let us avoid the human exploitation of the planet and let the other lifeforms exist?

are all religions utterly antropocentric?

thank you for your time!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, eumeme, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for a thought provoking thread!

I haven't time to delve deeply into the subject right now, but I can say I am torn on the subject.

What you describe sounds mostly in line with Native American beliefs, with which I generally agree. The problem of overpopulation was raised by Malthus, long ago.

Yet, there is a quandary I do not see you address:

Survival of humans. We require food. Without it, we die, and become extinct. For right or wrong, good or bad, we have evolved or been placed at the top of the food chain. We cannot ignore our requirements. In order for us to live, something somewhere must die. That is nature, that is life, that is just the way things are. That is the portion of Native American beliefs that you are overlooking.

Besides, 100 kids? Talk about a busy lady. Did she have 20 sets of quintuplets spaced about a year apart? I think if you were to look, most industrial nations have curtailed their populations. Europe, generally, and the US, are pretty much in a holding pattern. Zero to small growth. Japan's population is actually projected to decline. The explosion you mention is in under-developed nations, the ones with fewer resources to begin with, where infant mortality has always been high, and lifespans are relatively short. Which, come to think of it, probably exacerbates the problem. Have more kids because some will not live to become adults. Not saying right or wrong, just the way it is.

 

[InLove]

Hello, eumeme--Peace, and welcome to CR

This is an issue very close to my own heart. I believe that the earth is here to be shared among all creatures, and also that humans are endowed with the ability as well as the responsibility to exercise wisdom in this area. I am not sure that religion alone is the culprit in the plights all creatures share--I think greedy politics that falsely fly under the flags of various religions are at the root of the problem. Ignorance makes its contribution, as well, but usually because people are kept in ignorance by the very powermongers who falsely fly those flags (and I might add that even many, if not most, of them are often acting out of ignorance as well.)

For example, when the Native Americans (who were not ignorant about their own environment and way of life) began to be "taught" by those who were not familiar with the land and the balance of the "New World", not only was that balance lost to them, but to us all for so many years that now it is impossible for us to completely restore (and I agree with you that there actually appears to be relatively little sincere interest in doing so). As was quoted in an excellent semi-documentary I recently watched: "In order to save the child, we must kill the Indian." This line made me literally sob, because, well, to put it bluntly, people who believed this killed part of me. But I still say that it was politics and greed, not religion, at the root of it all.

When I plant my food, I try to plant enough for what I need, plus a little extra. I am very aware of environmental hazards, and my produce is organic. When I harvest, I leave some for the birds. It is just what I believe in doing.

I try my best to let my little bit of space over which I "have dominion" be open to the balance. Sometimes it gets a bit out of whack, but then the Spirit inside me to which I submit myself always has the right answer--the ancient and still applicable knowledge I need to resolve the situation.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Greetings Eumeme,

You ask the question, "are all religions this anthropocentric?"

Well, the answer from my point of view is a little complicated.

As a buddhist, I would say that all animals deserve respect and good treatment. This is largely because of belief in reincarnation which tells us that any animal could be our mother from a previous life. Buddhists do believe that humans are a higher form of existence than animals, but in the last life or in the next I could have been any kind of animal.

As for our ownership of the world, well, that is a little more complex, since the physical world does not really exist.

Hope this helps

Forever
Awaiting The Fifth

 

[Thomas]

In the great Monotheisms there is ever this tendency, but as all three are founded on Hebrew Scriptures, there is our answer.

"And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let
him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air,
and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that
moveth upon the earth."
Genesis 1:26

All nature exists in an ordered hierarchy, by which it maintains it balance and its ecology. Were everything 'equal' in a unilateral sense then chaos would ensue (life would in fact not be biologically possible). Everything exists 'in relation' to everything else, and this relationship has its vertical as well as horizontal dimension.

Man, as the work of the Sixth Day, is the crown of creation in that man alone encompasses in his being all other created orders, from the mineral to the angelic by nature.

By 'dominion' it is understood as an authority granted by God, a necessary condition if man is to act according to the Divine Will. If man cannot comprehend the Divine, he has no meaningful basis for his relation with creation, other than his or its own sensible good.

"And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of
the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see
what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature
the same is its name."
Genesis 2:19

Interesting point here - 'all the beasts of the earth' are, like Adam himself, formed 'out of the ground,' and in this sense share a common root. Also 'living creature' is 'chay nefesh' which, in reference to man, is translated as 'living soul.'

This is the essential difference. Man, as a creature, is aware of his soul. The animal domain is not (other than its own instinct for survival).

From an esoteric perspective, if this took place before the Fall, before 'their eyes were opened,' then it is with other eyes that Adam views the natural order before him. This is the inner eye, the eye of the heart (I have a reservation about saying 'the third eye' as I am not sure of its doctrinal determination - is it heart or is it mind? - although I do accept a rough equivalence).

Thus Adam perceived each creature in its essence - not its individual form - and named it accordingly.

The problem is not so much that man assumes an anthropomorphism in God, but that he assumes a deiform nature for himself, in the lower aspects of himself, and thus usurps his true nature, made 'in the image and likeness.'

Might I also add that as the Christian religion, for example, numbers some 2 billion souls, not all of those are as profligate with their world as some, and in fact a significant proportion are 'scratching a living' from the dirt.

It's not religion that's the problem, its man, and primarily man with the technological resources to pander to his own cravings. No culture will support a negative population growth, and our 'advanced' societies cannot support zero growth either (as markets must always increase).

The religious outlook on the 'sanctity of life' is argued from the same principle that you argue - that another life should not be treated any less than one's own, so every living being (including a foetus) has a right to life regardless of the the parents might suffer.

I do agree the freedom to 'prevent' life (ie birth control) should be a free moral choice (but the media will never allow that), but to 'take' life is another step. (And in principle there's not much between the two.)

Likewise the creation of life as a 'farm' for the comfort of the living.

There's big moral issues ahead, and if we're not very careful, money will decide the issue in its favour.

Remember that the US, along with some European countries, actively practiced eugenics during the 50s - and these were people who would call themselves Christian, and this the country that declares itself champion of the rights of the individual - our only security are the eternal truths enshrined in the moral dimensions of the world's sacred texts.

Thomas

 

[sword and silver]

I’m not sure that growth is really a problem at the moment. As has already been noted, most of the industrialized world is actually slowing its growth or shrinking in size. Some European nations are looking at a population decrease at the moment. What I think exists is more of a problem with the division of resources and the abuse of those resources. The ‘western world’ uses more than half of the resources that circulate world wide but doesn’t posses half the world’s population. A lot of these resources probably aren’t even needed by the industrial world, but the population loves them. Admittedly, though, I'm somewhat guilty of wanting more than I’ll ever need.

I think the treatment of the natural world by my culture (America) is both a tragedy and a shame. Scientists have been developing incredible substances with amazing properties, but haven’t thought of how to safely dispose of them when they’re no longer needed. We’re constantly developing devices that take up more space and require more energy, but have used our space poorly and still haven’t figured out how to produce a safe energy source. (Though hot fusion may be possible in about 50 years).

I don’t think it’s completely unfair to say it’s an anthropomorphic belief system that has affected these actions. Everyone’s actions flow from what they believe, and since the actions of the modern day world demonstrate a conflict with the natural world, I’d say there is a problem with modern day belief systems. Whether or not this is the direct fault of any religion is more debatable since a belief system is broader than just religion, encompassing social and cultural systems as well.

 

[earl]

In the great Monotheisms there is ever this tendency, but as all three are founded on Hebrew Scriptures, there is our answer.

"And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let
him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air,
and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that
moveth upon the earth."
Genesis 1:26

All nature exists in an ordered hierarchy, by which it maintains it balance and its ecology. Were everything 'equal' in a unilateral sense then chaos would ensue (life would in fact not be biologically possible). Everything exists 'in relation' to everything else, and this relationship has its vertical as well as horizontal dimension.

Man, as the work of the Sixth Day, is the crown of creation in that man alone encompasses in his being all other created orders, from the mineral to the angelic by nature.

By 'dominion' it is understood as an authority granted by God, a necessary condition if man is to act according to the Divine Will. If man cannot comprehend the Divine, he has no meaningful basis for his relation with creation, other than his or its own sensible good.

"And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of
the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see
what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature
the same is its name."
Genesis 2:19

Interesting point here - 'all the beasts of the earth' are, like Adam himself, formed 'out of the ground,' and in this sense share a common root. Also 'living creature' is 'chay nefesh' which, in reference to man, is translated as 'living soul.'

This is the essential difference. Man, as a creature, is aware of his soul. The animal domain is not (other than its own instinct for survival).

From an esoteric perspective, if this took place before the Fall, before 'their eyes were opened,' then it is with other eyes that Adam views the natural order before him. This is the inner eye, the eye of the heart (I have a reservation about saying 'the third eye' as I am not sure of its doctrinal determination - is it heart or is it mind? - although I do accept a rough equivalence).

Thus Adam perceived each creature in its essence - not its individual form - and named it accordingly.

The problem is not so much that man assumes an anthropomorphism in God, but that he assumes a deiform nature for himself, in the lower aspects of himself, and thus usurps his true nature, made 'in the image and likeness.'

Might I also add that as the Christian religion, for example, numbers some 2 billion souls, not all of those are as profligate with their world as some, and in fact a significant proportion are 'scratching a living' from the dirt.

It's not religion that's the problem, its man, and primarily man with the technological resources to pander to his own cravings. No culture will support a negative population growth, and our 'advanced' societies cannot support zero growth either (as markets must always increase).

The religious outlook on the 'sanctity of life' is argued from the same principle that you argue - that another life should not be treated any less than one's own, so every living being (including a foetus) has a right to life regardless of the the parents might suffer.

I do agree the freedom to 'prevent' life (ie birth control) should be a free moral choice (but the media will never allow that), but to 'take' life is another step. (And in principle there's not much between the two.)

Likewise the creation of life as a 'farm' for the comfort of the living.

There's big moral issues ahead, and if we're not very careful, money will decide the issue in its favour.

Remember that the US, along with some European countries, actively practiced eugenics during the 50s - and these were people who would call themselves Christian, and this the country that declares itself champion of the rights of the individual - our only security are the eternal truths enshrined in the moral dimensions of the world's sacred texts.

Thomas

Hi Thomas. As always, find your in-depth theological info quie stimulating (& even find myself often agreeing with big pieces of it )Being the smorgasbord sort I am, have long had this tendency to see many Christian concepts through rather buddhist lenses-don't know if it "improves" the view-just makes sense for me personally. When iIreflect on the above passage re making man in God's image in reference to this thread topic, I agree with you that it isn't anthropmorphizing God that causes us problems per se, (turning god into man). In Zen there is the old metaphor that the mind of enlightenment would function more llike a clear mirror that accurately reflects whatever appears before it and when an individual's mind is identified with/attached to self, it is incapable of such functioning. So, to me, to make man in the image of God means to make in man the capacity to grow into an empty mirror which can than accurately reflect God in each manner and moment of God's arising and revelation. A mirror does not have an image of its own-no "thing" to point to as its shaped essence. In fact, one could say one only knows a mirror by its mirroring. Now I'm beginning to free associate to something I posted at this forum a while back re how maybe God's a verb more than a noun-at that time i had just stumbled on how the etymology of the word "god" may have been from the Germanic word which meant "to pour," but I'm probably digressing too much now Take care, Earl

 

[pohaikawahine]

what religions can do to stop the human invasion and allow us to respect our siblings lifeform life - i.e. leaving some resources to them?

what does your religion say to let us avoid the human exploitation of the planet and let the other lifeforms exist?

are all religions utterly antropocentric?

thank you for your time!

good questions eumeme .... in the ancient ways of hawaii nei we have a way of saying "he hawai'i au" which literally translates as "I am Hawaii" .... it means I give breath and life to my culture and its values by the way I live my life (not by my words, but only by my actions) .... and the way to live this life is to be "pono" which basically means to live in harmony or in balance with all. I noticed the reference to "balance" in many of the postings and to me this is the concept in many of the ancient texts associated with religions and also in many traditional cultural practices that tells us how to survive (another seven generations, and another seven generations, etc.) I don't associate it with any religions but as a way of life that we all need to return to, the perfect balance for lack of a better description. Many symbols for example show us this balance, the Star of David for example with the two triangels that intertwine reflect the balance point, the spiralling energies of which is the balance of male and female energies within the body reflect the balance .... there are so many examples of this. Seven is also a symbol for the completion of a cycle and the concept of seven generations is important ....

"look behind you... see your sons and your daughters .... they are your future .... look farther and see your sons' and daughters' children and their children's children even unto the seventh generation....that's the way we were taught .... think about it .... you yourself are a seventh generation" (Leon Shenandoah, Onodanga Elder)

"everything we think, everything we feel, and everything we do affects the generations that follow .... the consequences of our decisions effect our families, friends, community, island planet - and those who follow must also accept the consequences of our decisions..... our decisions should serve the generations that follow."

we can know the future only in the laughter of healthy children ....

the circle that surrounds the cross symbol is the symbol of perfect balance .... the merging of 3+4 (spirit + matter) (heaven + earth) equals seven .... rebalance the seven internal energy centers and we will rebalance our world and our universe as well ....

I really enjoyed reading "The Davinci Code" because of all its symbols including that of balance, but the book never reached the real inner meaning of the symbol from my view .... a return to the balance will help us insure the survival of another seven generations, and another, and another ..... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine

 

[Kelcie]

Hi eumeme,

Just some thoughts on your post.

i believe that the concept of superiority in itself it's doomed and possibly the cause of great suffering for Life.

This is possible, but man in his superior ness is starting to realize that he is not as superior as he thinks he is.

the myth that this planet is own by the human race stem from the same superiority concept.

Lots of the human races are now openly acknowledging that we do share the planet with other species.

the idea that in few million years other animal species like dolphins or gorillas could develop other conscious intelligences is not even contemplated.

Do you think this is possible?

it's our planet and we do what we want with it. we are humans: we know it all!

If that is the way all humans think they would be mighty surprised when they find out that Mother Nature tends to fight back with no mercy. If we knew it all why do we have scientists etc trying to discover the universe?

if a lifeform is not human then it hasn't got many rights - unless it is food or food for our food or a pet.

Many animal rights people are fighting to protect the nearly extinct creatures. How effective they are I don’t know. More and more are jumping on this wagon however.



http://www.valsesiascuole.it/liceoborgosesia/multimediale/modulo2001/cantico/

when he speaks about earth he says "our mother earth" and not "our earth".

Do you have an English version of this?

if earth is our mother then all lifeforms born from earth are our brothers and sisters and we should be careful in not taking away their natural rights to exist as a lifeform.

I don’t think they are so much our brothers and sisters but certainly life forms to be respected.

I believe that our real uniqueness is to be the first self-aware being on earth - this should give us not less but more responsibility toward other lifeforms: we have to make decision for all Life on earth, not just for human greedy interests. it should be like being the elder, mature brother caring for his younger siblings.

I agree, and in certain parts of the world this still happens.

unfortunately the trend I've seen in recent years is quite the opposite: we aren't making any progress on the kyoto agreement: the current mythology followed by politicians is that mankind owns the planet and come first along with its food and pets.

There are many people trying to change this in today’s world. However, changing the mindset of some is not an easy task. Time will tell how well they do.

and so we keep taking more space for our food to grow (more animals, more farming) and we destroy the ecosystem for other animal and plants that -unfortunately (!) for them - haven't got the luck to be on our food list.

Mother nature in her wisdom will as I said before fight back. For us to destroy the ecosystem for other animals and plants is a huge undertaking considering that we may have Mother Nature to contend with. She has an innate ability to right any wrongs done to her.

a good father and a good mother would know that they wouldn't be able to raise a family with 100 kids with the limited resources they can bring home

That’s for sure!

but here we are - such an intelligent race but so full of ourself to fill the entire planet with our dirt (thanx to our modern life we produce much more dirt than other lifeforms) and forget that our resources are limited too.

In all fairness to the human race, many a man is trying to reverse this.

as a consequence we can easily anticipate wars and famine among humans and and Life Death (i mean extinction of millions of species)......and the trouble is that we'll keep growing even after 2050.

Or we can become that change ourselves and hope that we are able to promote peace and find new ways to feed the poor or teach them to become self-sufficient. There is so much we still can do. Trouble may be is that we try to save millions in our minds and therefore this task seems too overwhelming to achieve. Each thousand-mile journey starts with one step. Perhaps if we all helped one person we could prevent war or famine. Still hope on the horizon if we believe.

if we don't do something to preserve Life Diversity we'll probably undermine even the mankind life - we are all connected through the food chain - we shouldn't forget that.

What do you mean by this? You mean a sort of self-destruction thing?

in my opinion this is the century central problem/project - from what I'm aware very few people are doing something about it - and many religions try to keep the mankind growing indefinitely. (probably the religion inconscious/storical reason is to enlarge the number of their followers...)

Religions do that?

what religions can do to stop the human invasion and allow us to respect our siblings lifeform life - i.e. leaving some resources to them?

I don’t view humans as an invasion. Perhaps religions if they were effective and understood in their depth more humans will possess a sincere and deep respect for all of life.

what does your religion say to let us avoid the human exploitation of the planet and let the other lifeforms exist?

That if we listen to mother nature in her wisdom and work with her instead of against her there will be less natural disasters. If in respecting the whole of life we will indeed be mindful of what is needed to bring the balance back in to our earthly realm.

are all religions utterly antropocentric?

I don’t think so, In fact a very few many of them teach love for all living things, all creatures both great and small.




Thank you for your post
Kelcie

 

[path_of_one]

While a non-anthropocentric belief system can help people have a worldview that is more concerned with animals, plants, and so forth, I would say that (along with sword and silver) anthropocentrism is not the key cause of our current environmental degradation.

Most of the population issues are in the third world and are a result of poverty, limited rights for women to control their fertility (as well as limited education and opportunities for women), and lack of social security and retirement systems. Any family that are small farmers needs many children to have the labor necessary to survive, and in areas in which 50% of your kids will die before the age of five, you have lots of children in hopes that a couple will make it to adulthood. Furthermore, in nations without any social security system, parents must try to have children so they will be able to survive when they are elderly. Finally, in many areas birth control is either unavailable, too expensive (in some areas of Africa, one month would cost one's entire income), or women don't have any options. When women are educated (even at a nominal level), given rights to control their fertility, and have opportunities to improve their standard of living, birth rates sharply decrease. So we really need to be working on the underlying factors, and not directly on population- if we fix the problems of poverty, insecurity, oppression of women, and so forth- we'll see a dramatic reduction in birth rates.

Most of the resource use problems stem from capitalism and materialistic cultures of the first world, especially the United States. The average citizen of the United States has an ecological footprint of 24 acres- if everyone lived at this middle class US standard of living we'd need 4.5 worlds of resources! Obviously, that won't work. The first world currently uses 80% of the world's energy resources- that doesn't leave a whole lot for the third world to develop a higher standard of living. We really have to start taking a hard look at our culture of consumption and recognizing that if we really want to save our environment as well as helping third world people, we need to stop expecting to consume at such a high rate and at low prices. The environmental and social costs are passed on to others.

Interestingly, the dominant religion of the first world- Christianity- promotes anti-materialism (or at least, Christ's teachings do). Here is a case in which although one's religion does encourage right action vis-a-vis the problem, people are ignoring it. Or people do not realize how extravagant their lifestyle is compared to where it needs to be for the overall benefit of the world, which is a common problem with middle and upper middle class residents of the States- we do not recognize our own over-consumption, because we are trained to constantly want more and compare our consumption habits with the extremely wealthy who have extravagant and wasteful displays of wealth.

Perhaps we don't necessarily need a religion that is anthropocentric, but rather to honor the teachings we say we follow.

(Not that I myself promote anthorpocentrism. As a Druid I believe the natural world has sentience and wisdom, power and rights. As a Christian I also believe that humans were created to be the stewards of the earth- to keep and protect nature and promote wise and compassionate use- to tend the garden.)

Peace to all,
Path

 

[Thomas]

Hi all,

Earl said:
Now I'm beginning to free associate to something I posted at this forum a while back re how maybe God's a verb more than a noun

I hit upon that one myself, although never really pursued it to any depth, but it does 'free the mind' from a whole host of unquestioned constraints when we consider it this way, both about God and ourselves.

One avenue was Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
The more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known" and the world of Quantum mechanics.

As I recall it, one can locate the particle, but not the wave, or the wave but not the particle - so in anthropomorphising, we tend to locate an object as a characteristic, a quality or a nature, but lose sight of the Totality, or in metaphysical terms we relativise the Absolute.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

As I recall it, one can locate the particle, but not the wave, or the wave but not the particle - so in anthropomorphising, we tend to locate an object as a characteristic, a quality or a nature, but lose sight of the Totality, or in metaphysical terms we relativise the Absolute.

That's an interesting observation.

 

[Bruce Michael]

The planet Earth is our Mother Earth- it is Adam.
The animals are part of our human family.