Food Values Ecology

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7

Food, Values, and Ecology

By Roar Ramesh Bjonnes

Many environmental experts and activists argue that to live a life according to the
directives of ecology, is the most urgent task for humanity right now. But what does it
mean? How can we develop a genuine environmental ethics? And what will it look like?

For science, viruses represent the smallest accumulation and diversity of molecules which
is recognized as "life." Maybe in the near future, when more advanced techniques are
employed, we will recognize the sentience of smaller aggregations of molecules. For
now, viruses personify the boundary between life and non-life. But in the wheel of
creation — whether in the descending and devolutionary phase, or in the ascending and
evolutionary stage — there is Consciousness at every level of the way. Even stones and
crystals are "alive" and have dormant minds and are expressions of Cosmic
Consciousness. For the spiritual sages of India, it is therefore impossible to draw a final
line between animate and inanimate beings. In the so-called inanimate world there is
mind, but the mind is dormant, as if asleep, because there is no nervous system. And
according to the so-called Santiago theory, developed by Francisco Varela and Humberto
Maturana, the process of cognition is intimately linked to the process of life. hence the
brain is not neccesary for the mind to exist. A worm, or a tree, has no brain but has a
mind.The simplest forms of life are capable of perception and thus cognition.

Native Americans certainly experienced this mind in the cosmos. In the international
best-seller, The Secret Life of Plants, Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird reports that,
when killing a tree, the tribal would have a heart-to-heart conservation with the tree. In
no uncertain terms would he let the tree know what was going to happen, and finally he
would ask for forgiveness for having to commit this unfortunate act of violence.

In the same book, they also documented scientific experiments on plants with a modified
lie detector. The instrument would register when a plant's leaves were cut or burnt. Not
only that, when a plant "understood" it was going to be killed, it went into a state of
shock or "numbness." Thus, the scientists explained, possibly preventing it from undue
suffering, which again may explain the "warnings" given to trees by the Native
Americans.

Such laboratory tests, may sound outrageous to materialists, but not to the ancient,
animist peoples from all over the world, nor to Indian yogis or Westerns mystics. They
have for long informed us that we do not live in a dead and meaningless universe. There
is spirit and creative will everywhere. There is longing for song in the heart of stones, and
there is love for the Great in the bosom of trees. But unfortunately, nature cannot always
express its grief when it is damaged or destroyed. To protect it, we must therefore
conserve and properly utilize all natural resources.

Poets and sages throughout the ages have observed a deep grief in nature. In the poetry
anthology News of the Universe, poet Robert Bly writes about nature having a kind of
melancholic mood, or "slender sadness." Buddhists associate this intrinsic grief with the
incessant wheel of reproduction.

If nature — earth, trees, and water — truly experience a form of existential pain or grief,
at least when destroyed and polluted, our conservation efforts and our ecological outlook
must first and foremost acknowledge this innate suffering. And by acknowledging it,
nature becomes part of us. To paraphrase noted psychologist James Hillman — one of the
innovators in the new field of eco -psychology — our mind is enlarged to include nature;
the world becomes us. And if we destroy that world, out of ignorance or greed, we
destroy a part of ourselves.

Since mind or consciousness is expressed even in so- called inanimate objects as rocks,
sand or mud, it perceives an intrinsic oneness in all of creation. Thus in Tantric
philospher P. R. Sarkar's world view, we grant existential rights or value to all beings —
whether soil, plants, animals and humans. He concedes that inprinciple all physical
expressions of Cosmic Consciousness has an equal right to exist and to express itself.
This sentiment is echoed by Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Naess, whose "biospherical
egalitarianism" is advocated by the deep-ecology movement, which he founded. But as
evolution is irreversible — amoebas eventually evolve into apes, but apes never
transform into amoebas — Tantra also acknowledges "higher" and "lower" expressions of
Consciousness. This differentiation is crucial, and it is on the basis of this that Tantra and
deep-ecology differ.

The Tantric ecological world-view is both egalitarian and hierarchical. Evolution


proceeds by expressing more and more complex beings who are able to express higher
levels of consciousness. On this evolutionary ladder, amoebas are at the "bottom" and
humans are at the "top." Within this hierarchical system there are various levels of
egalitarian cooperation, but the system as a whole is hierarchical.

This notion is also supported by the new systems sciences, which proclaim that one
cannot have wholeness without hierarchy. As Ken Wilber explains: "'Hierarchy' and
'wholeness,' in other words, are two names for the same thing, and if you destroy one,
you completely destroy the other." Each hierarchy is composed of increasing orders of
wholeness — organisms include cells which include molecules, which include atoms.

In an evolutionary context, the new stage of development has extra value relative to the
previous stage. An oak sprout is more complex and therefore endowed with a fuller
expression of consciousness than an acorn. A monkey has a more evolved nervous system
and mind than an insect, and a human has a more evolved brain and intellect than an ape.

This crucial definition of subsequent higher stages of consciousness, of a hierarchy of


being, is central to Tantra. But, and with potential dire consequences, it is often
overlooked by many Greens or deep-ecologists. They often equate hierarchy with the
higher exploiting the lower by transferring human pathological experiences of hierarchy -
- such as fascism, for example — to the study of nature. But the ecological universe of
nature could not exist without hierarchy, and humans, for good or for worse, are, as the
most advanced expression of consciousness in evolution, stewards of the natural world.
Hence we need to acknowledge both unity and oneness as well as high and low (or deep
and shallow) expressions of consciousness when developing an ecological world view.

We need to emulate nature in advancing what Riane Eisler calls "actualization


hierarchies," we must learn to maximize our species' potential, both in relation to
ourselves and to nature. In other words, a self-actualized humanity can learn to integrate
itself in relation to nature. Learn to realize our oneness with the "other." Learn to
recognize that being on top of the evolutionary ladder does not give us the right to rob
and exploit those lower than ourselves.

Because of the many pathological expressions of hierarchy in human society — such as


fascism, Nazism, communism, or corporate multinationalism — many so-called new
paradigm thinkers are suggesting a new and supposedly healthier model termed
heterarchy.

In a heterarchy, rule is established by an egalitarian interplay of all parties. For example,


atoms may have a heterarchical relationship amongst themselves, but their relationship to
a cell is hierarchical. In other words, the various heterarchies are strands in the ever
-evolving web of hierarchies, and when functioning optimally, the relationship between
them is one of coordinated cooperation. By negating hierarchy and favoring heterarchy
only, we establish another pathology, because the existence or validity of heterarchy does
not disprove the existence or importance of positive or actualized hierarchy. There is an
ongoing movement toward greater complexity and higher consciousness in evolution,
while at the same time there is, on a deeper level, ecological cooperation and spiritual
unity amongst all beings.

In other words, there are both heterarchy and hierarchy. To disprove the hierarchical flow
of evolution by saying that all of us — whether leaf, tree, monkey, or human — are
equal, heterarchical partners in the great web of life, is to impose on nature faulty and
limited concepts. It reduces the wondrous complexity of creation to a lowest common
denominator, and that serves neither nature nor humans well.
There is unity of consciousness amongst all beings, because we all come from, and are
created by, the same Spirit. But nature is also infinitely diverse, and we need to embrace
variety in al its forms. One such unique variety is expressed in terms of consciousness. A
seedling is more complex and therefore more conscious than and acorn, and an oak is
more complex and conscious than a seedling.

Another way of expressing this is that a dog has more capacity for mental reflection and
self-consciousness than a fir tree. Both are manifestations of Cosmic Consciousness, both
have mind, and both have equal existential value — but because of the difference in
expression of depth and quality of consciousness, the dog is higher on the natural
hierarchy of being than the fir tree. So when we develop our ecological ethics, both the
"low" and the "high" expressions of nature must be valued and accounted for.

Nonhuman creatures have the same existential value to themselves as human beings have
to themselves. Perhaps human beings can understand the value of their existence, whilean
earth worm cannot. Even so, no one has delegated any authority to human beings to kill
those unfortunate creatures. But to survive, we cannot avoid killing other beings.

To solve this dilemma, articles of food are to be selected from amongst those beings
where development of consciousness is comparatively low. If vegetables, corn, bean and
rice are available, cows or pigs should not be slaughtered.

Secondly, before killing any animals with "developed or underdeveloped consciousness,"


we must consider deeply if it is possible to live a healthy life without taking such lives.

Thus, in addition to existential value, various beings, based on their depth of


consciousness, have a variable degree of what is often termed "intrinsic value." The more
consciousness a being has, the deeper the feelings, and the more potential for suffering.
Eating plants is therefore preferable to eating animals. As George Bernhard Shaw once
said: "Animals are my friends ... and I don't eat my friends."

It is also ecologically more sustainable to extract nourishment from entities lower down
on the food chain. Vast land areas are used to raise livestock for food. These areas could
be utilized far more productively if planted with grains, beans, and other legumes for
human consumption. It is estimated that only 10 percent of the protein and calories we
feed to our livestock is recovered in the meat we eat. The other 90 percent goes literally
"down the drain."

In addition to existential value, and intrinsic value, all beings have utility value.
Throughout history, human beings usually preserved those creatures which had an
immediate utility value. We are more inclined to preserve the lives of cows than of rats,
for example. But, because of all beings' existential value, we cannot claim that only
human beings have the right to live, and not non-humans. All are the children of Mother
Earth; all are the offspring of the Cosmic Consciousness.

Sometimes it is difficult to know what the utilitarian value of an animal or a plant is;
therefore we may needlessly destroy the ecological balance by killing one species without
considering the consequences of its complex relationship or utility value to other species.
A forest's utility value, for example, is more than just x number of board feet of lumber. It
serves as nesting and feeding ground for birds and animals; its roots and branches protect
the soil from erosion; its leaves or needles produce oxygen; and its pathways and camp
grounds provide nourishment for the human soul. As a whole, the forest ecosystem has an
abundance of ecological, aesthetic, and spiritual values which extends far beyond its
benefits in the form of tooth picks or plywood.

All of nature is endowed with existential, intrinsic value, and utility value. This
hierarchical, and ultimately holistic understanding of evolution and ecology, formulates
the basic foundation for a new, and potentially groundbreaking ecological ethics.

If we embrace the divinity in all of creation, the expression of our ecological ethics will
become an act of sublime spirituality. Our conservation efforts and our sustainable
resource use will become sacred offerings to Mother Earth, and ultimately to Cosmic
Consciousness, the God and Goddess within and beyond nature.

Notes:
— Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life, Anchor Books, 1996
— Sarkar, P.R., Neo-humanism:The Liberation of Intellect, Ananda Marga
Publications 1982
— Wilber, Ken, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Shambala, 1996
— Parham, Vistara, What's Wrong With Eating Meat, Sisters Universal
Publishing, Northampton, 1979
— Eisler, Riane, The Chalice and the Blade, Harper,1987
— Sessions, George and Duvall, Bill, Deep Ecology, Peregrine Books, 1985
— Bly, Robert, News of the Universe, Sierra Club Books, 1980

— Roar Bjonnes is co-founder of the Prama Institute. He has been an agronomist, a


freelance journalist and is currently a columnist for a Norwegian Nespaper and
contributing editor for New Renaissance (www.ru.org). His articles have appeared
in books, newspapers and magazines in the US and in Europe. He can be reached
at: rbjonnes@aol.com

You might also like