Food Values Ecology
Food Values Ecology
Food Values Ecology
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.
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.
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.
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