Is SR an environmental catastrophe in the making?

[cdn2wheeler]

A thought came to us last night as some friends and I were discussing the whole concept of subjective reality, and I'd like the group's take on this.

The thesis was essentially this: Nothing exists outside your conscious awareness until you bring it into your consciousness. (That, as I understand, is basically the foundation of SR, though if my interpretation is wrong, please call me on it because I may have it incorrect.)

That said, there is such a thing as a shared SR; the world, gravity & other laws of physics and so forth.

My environmentally-conscious friend said that, in her view, SR had the potential to be extraordinarily damaging to the environment. She explained that if we use a lot of fossil fuels (eg: gasoline) and throw a lot of stuff away, once the fuel is burned and the stuff is thrown out it ceases to exist in our minds and we don't give it another thought. But the green house gas (GHG) emissions and stuff that's thrown out pollutes the shared SR, impacting the rest of the world to a detrimental effect. It may not be in our consciousness anymore, but it still exists in shared SR.

Western societies have been essentially living in this paradigm for years, burning fossil fuels relentlessly and throwing away stuff willy-nilly without giving it a second thought. The result has been a spike in GHG emissions, associated global warming and a sea of garbage.

Then she got up and had another chip with cheese dip, leaving us with question marks over our collective heads.

Whaddya think? Can a literal interpretation of SR be the cause of real environmental degradation?

[Mr.Mustache]

I don't think you are quite getting SR. Steve explains it really weird in my opinion. I came across the idea before I read on this blog so I'm not subject to the same confusion lol.

I explain SR like so: Awareness is a fundamental aspect of reality just like mass, space, time, energy etc. Awareness is a thing in itself, what it is like to see or hear or feel cannot be reduced to a set of simpler parts. Fundamentals like mass, space and the like are necessarily subjective experiences because they can only be known in terms of the senses.

In order for awareness to manifest (physically at least) complex information systems such as the brain are needed, meaning that there are necessary features about the world. Specific constants of nature that have allowed for the formation of planets and life must exist for the world to consistent within these aspects of reality. So, in other words, space, time, energy and consciousness are the same (non-duality or SR)

So, when you say SR may be the cause of global warming you're also saying that energy and matter is causing global warming. Thats just what reality is. The cause of global warming according to some is our own actions. SR is not the cause of global warming.

[munish]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

A thought came to us last night as some friends and I were discussing the whole concept of subjective reality, and I'd like the group's take on this.

The thesis was essentially this: Nothing exists outside your conscious awareness until you bring it into your consciousness. (That, as I understand, is basically the foundation of SR, though if my interpretation is wrong, please call me on it because I may have it incorrect.)

That said, there is such a thing as a shared SR; the world, gravity & other laws of physics and so forth.

My environmentally-conscious friend said that, in her view, SR had the potential to be extraordinarily damaging to the environment. She explained that if we use a lot of fossil fuels (eg: gasoline) and throw a lot of stuff away, once the fuel is burned and the stuff is thrown out it ceases to exist in our minds and we don't give it another thought. But the green house gas (GHG) emissions and stuff that's thrown out pollutes the shared SR, impacting the rest of the world to a detrimental effect. It may not be in our consciousness anymore, but it still exists in shared SR.

Western societies have been essentially living in this paradigm for years, burning fossil fuels relentlessly and throwing away stuff willy-nilly without giving it a second thought. The result has been a spike in GHG emissions, associated global warming and a sea of garbage.

Then she got up and had another chip with cheese dip, leaving us with question marks over our collective heads.

Whaddya think? Can a literal interpretation of SR be the cause of real environmental degradation?

I think steve has already answered this.

He says," meat eaters are the biggest enemy this planet has ever seen."

By avoiding meat you can solve 99% of the environment related problems.
All other things like fossil fuels are excuses to avoid the guilt feelings by the Meat eaters.

[KireoUmoshiae]

You and your friend may, in fact, have the wrong idea about SR. I don't think SR causes things like pollution and CO2 to cease to exist in our minds. OR does, because it causes us to feel no connections to these things or the effects of these things and our own actions on the environment. Objective Reality is really the standard way of thinking that makes us all feel utterly seperated and dissassociated, and, if we really feel that way, why would we even bother to think about the other 7-9 billion people on the planet?

[vlizz]

Originally Posted by munish

I think steve has already answered this.

He says," meat eaters are the biggest enemy this planet has ever seen."

By avoiding meat you can solve 99% of the environment related problems.
All other things like fossil fuels are excuses to avoid the guilt feelings by the Meat eaters.

I have to say that I strongly disagree with this post. The biggest environmental challenge in the world today is global warming, and it is not caused by "meat eaters". I do acknowledge that cows produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas, but this is minimal in comparison to the effect we humans have caused by burning fossil fuels. I don't think that omnivores burn fossil fuels to avoid guilt feelings about eating meat, or that if we were vegans we would burn any less fossil fuels. Let's take Las Vegas as an example. Let's say that everyone in Las Vegas quits eating or using animal products of any kind. Is this going to stop the environment issues related to C02 production from fossil fuels? NO! People are still going to drive cars, use air conditioners, have lights in their homes, etc., all of which uses the same amount of fossil fuels regardless of whether or not the people eat meat. Let's look the consequences directly related to food. Where is the food going to come from. If everyone quits eating meat, fruit and vegetable production is going to have to increase. Granted, there will be an equal decrease in the amount of meat produced, but this isn't going to solve the overall problem. Likely, a large percentage of this food is going to have to be shipped in from another state or even country. The Las Vegas area doesn't exactly have the greatest farmland in the world for growing vegetables. Even if the food was grown locally, huge amounts of water would have to be utilized in order to grow the crops and chemical fertilizers would have to be used almost exclusively. Chemical fertilizers are all derived or use petroleum in their manufacture, and the water would have to be pumped into the area using even more energy. I'm not saying that "meat eaters" are any more efficient. I'm just saying that we aren't going to solve any significant environmental problems by going vegan. In today's marketplace, going vegan has the same environmental drain as continuing to eat meat. Either way you look at it the food must be shipped or trucked in, and no doubt a large amount of petroleum was used to manufacture it before it was even shipped. You are just trading one problem for another, because all of the produce you buy, even organic, has a link to the fossil fuel industry, and even if everyone stopped eating meat, that link would still exist. I don't know if Steve Pavlina said that 99% of our environmental problems would be solved if "meat eaters" changed their ways or if you just misquoted him, but if it is indeed what he thinks, I would like him to explain his reasoning with facts. If he has an article about the subject, please refer me to it.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

My environmentally-conscious friend said that, in her view, SR had the potential to be extraordinarily damaging to the environment. She explained that if we use a lot of fossil fuels (eg: gasoline) and throw a lot of stuff away, once the fuel is burned and the stuff is thrown out it ceases to exist in our minds and we don't give it another thought. But the green house gas (GHG) emissions and stuff that's thrown out pollutes the shared SR, impacting the rest of the world to a detrimental effect. It may not be in our consciousness anymore, but it still exists in shared SR.

I think all the trash we toss doesn't leave our consciousness at all. Everything we touch is part of our world forever, even in SR. Just because we put it somewhere else doesn't mean it's not part of our subjective reality anymore. The issue is that we become unconsious about these things, it's still part of us in a sub-conscious way, lurking in us. That's what I would have said back to her.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by vlizz

I have to say that I strongly disagree with this post. The biggest environmental challenge in the world today is global warming, and it is not caused by "meat eaters".

Global warming is primarily caused by deforestation. Not fossil fuels.

• In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

And deforestation is primarily caused by the demand for meat.

• Rainforest Destruction and Beef Consumption
  
• Meat consumption and Rainforest Depletion
  
• World needs a 10% meat diet to fight global warming
  
• Leading cause of deforestation.? - Yahoo! Answers
  
• World Watch Magazine: July/August 2004 | Worldwatch Institute

[DRK]

One more link on the connections between meat eating & global warming, the UN report Livestock's Long Shadow:

LEAD digital library: Livestock’s long shadow - Environmental issues and options

Really, if you consider that it takes 16 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of meat, and you think about all the fuel used in raising & shipping the grain, let alone all the other factors (see above report or at least the executive summary), it's obvious that meat consumption is a huge part of the problem. Not the only part, and maybe not exactly 99%, but a huge part nonetheless.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

My environmentally-conscious friend said that, in her view, SR had the potential to be extraordinarily damaging to the environment. She explained that if we use a lot of fossil fuels (eg: gasoline) and throw a lot of stuff away, once the fuel is burned and the stuff is thrown out it ceases to exist in our minds and we don't give it another thought. But the green house gas (GHG) emissions and stuff that's thrown out pollutes the shared SR, impacting the rest of the world to a detrimental effect. It may not be in our consciousness anymore, but it still exists in shared SR.

You friend is going from one being to multiple beings when she adds the shared space idea... In SR it's all you. You are the observer, you are the polluter, you are the earth. You can't solve any problem in this paradigm by separating yourself from it.

Your friend is playing the perpetrator-victim game in a reality where that cannot exist. If it's all you there is no perpetrator, there is no victim, but in SR we can always pretend there is one if we want.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Nothing exists outside your conscious awareness until you bring it into your consciousness. (That, as I understand, is basically the foundation of SR, though if my interpretation is wrong, please call me on it because I may have it incorrect.)

That said, there is such a thing as a shared SR; the world, gravity & other laws of physics and so forth.

Subjective reality is the reality that is perceived by the individual, so a "shared SR" is a contradictio in terminis.

[John Freestone]

Dharma's words make more sense to me than most, here and on his very interesting site, which I've just had a quick look at. Thanks Dharma, and everyone else.

I think that beyond all the words about self, subject and object, manifestation, etc. the deeper point is that no-one knows, or very few do and they tend not to talk about it, and if they do they will tell you that words won't describe it anyway in such a way that you can say "Ah, yes, I've got it now. I'll tell that to all my mates". You don't understand it, do you? Be honest, now. I don't either. I could be dreaming writing this, some universal thing could be manifesting me, dreaming me dreaming this. There could be multiple universes, there could be one. We could all be embarrassed one day to find that the reductionists had it right all along (I doubt that though).

Slight detour here, but on your site, Dharma, you say that "like attracts like" is an easier way of saying “that which is like unto itself is drawn”. Easier to say it may be; the same it is not. Two ways I can think of: like attracts like has suggested there are separate things that are alike, whereas 'Abraham's' version only mentions one thing which is like itself. Second, in yours, one separate thing is active in doing the attraction of the other (if we're being pedantic, and I don't see any reason to stop now).

Dharma's main point, to me, is that our thinking something isn't going to make it real or not real. This - mean, that it will - is a misunderstanding of various ideas like karma. At some level, of course, if you put energy into defining things a certain way (I am happy / not happy) then you get what you invest in, and just possibly we can levitate or do other fun tricks. But on another level, you're just flotsam on the cosmic lake, and your thoughts (I'm happy / not happy) are created by the lake, along with meat, grain, Las Vegas...

There is a long tradition that as we develop consciousness of reality we also gain 'supernatural' powers, siddhi in Sanskrit, and spiritual teachers traditionally warn the disciple that these are a trap for the ego if you get too invested in doing stuff with them. It's not necessarily a sin, because often sin doesn't feature in the philosophy, it's just that now you've gone down a side road, off the spiritual path, away from discovering more about reality - or rather, from becoming more real. Steve writes about how we must empty ourselves of our social programming so that it doesn't control us - fine - and then there's space to fill ourselves up with our new, self-chosen programming. Typical programmer. The traditional teachings about how to know self and universe differ: just keep emptying. Everything you create to shove in its place is only useful in so far as it acts as an emetic for some other stuff (and many personal development tools are valid in that way). When you're completely empty, you ARE, and questions of who manifested whom are of such great amusement to you that you laugh all the way to the end of time.

This is the sad thing about getting it the wrong way round: instead of learning to appreciate how mysterious the universe is and developing humility about how incredibly bad we are at knowing it or ourselves, instead of recognising that knowing It will require some kind of new consciousness and getting on with our meditation, instead of sitting with silence and peace, we often just grasp at the idea of having more control over our destiny. Instead of the real potential of the ancient spiritual teaching, we take the message that we're getting nearer to becoming gods. And there's always someone ready to tell you you've been kept back from being godlike by your social conditioning (overlooking the fact that this progress towards godlike control of the world is one of its major features). Steve is a modern fakir. He's manifesting millions of dollars as a sideshow. That's ok, just as it's ok to stand and gawp. And he's right, only you can choose to develop, and whether you'd do that better subscribing or unsubscribing. He makes no bones about that, God bless him.

That trick is obviously quite easy, by the way, Steve, if you're allowed to invest even the first cent that may or may not have been drawn to you by your intention:everyone knows money makes money. I mean, can't you at least play with some different levels of reality, or something physical (what, you're telling me money isn't physical?). You say one of the reasons you chose money for the experiment is because it's easily measured. Try manifesting a grain of rice - or a single coin - and use a tape measure. I'm not saying it can't be done, but at least I'd be impressed.

Hey vliss!

Let's say that everyone in Las Vegas quits eating or using animal products of any kind.

Let's say that everyone in Las Vegas quits eating, and the last one standing switches the ****ing lights off.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

This is the sad thing about getting it the wrong way round: instead of learning to appreciate how mysterious the universe is and developing humility about how incredibly bad we are at knowing it or ourselves, instead of recognising that knowing It will require some kind of new consciousness and getting on with our meditation, instead of sitting with silence and peace, we often just grasp at the idea of having more control over our destiny. Instead of the real potential of the ancient spiritual teaching, we take the message that we're getting nearer to becoming gods. And there's always someone ready to tell you you've been kept back from being godlike by your social conditioning (overlooking the fact that this progress towards godlike control of the world is one of its major features).

I like what you wrote a lot! It does seem like the LoA movement is being "used" as an ego trip to get "stuff" that the ego thinks will help it be happy. And I try to post ideas just like you wrote that we are to be humble not controlling and allow. So maybe this is off topic now. What was this thread?

Oh, SR and the environment - I would hope the SR concept brings more reverance to the environment which is similar to becoming humble and not looking to control the world, or become god like in a sense. Our ego selves are not to become more detacted from what is not in our imediate awareness.

If you toss litter by the side of the road and pretend to forget about it, as an application of Steve's SR idea, then that is not (I hope) what he meant. That tossing of litter even if it happened years ago is still part of you. Our awareness has memory, that memory is part of your SR. How you feel about those memories is what can change but anything from the past is still part of how you got to where you are now, every little bit.

If you were saw the tree fall in the forest and heard the sound, that is part of you subjective reality. That is a different take on the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, did it make a sound?"

[vlizz]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Global warming is primarily caused by deforestation. Not fossil fuels.

• In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

And deforestation is primarily caused by the demand for meat.

• Rainforest Destruction and Beef Consumption
  
• Meat consumption and Rainforest Depletion
  
• World needs a 10% meat diet to fight global warming
  
• Leading cause of deforestation.? - Yahoo! Answers
  
• World Watch Magazine: July/August 2004 | Worldwatch Institute

The only problem with your reasoning is that trees are a renewable resource when re-forestation is utilized, and fossil fuels are not. As long as trees are replanted, the net carbon balance is unchanged. Even if we all become vegetarians, growing populations are going to demand more food. Instead of growing crops to feed the animals, you are going to grow crops to feed yourself. You are still going to have deforestation because it is cheaper to grown produce in poor countries and the demand for lumber is going to remain high because of increased population. Contrary to popular belief, livestock is an efficient way to harvest solar energy when managed correctly. Cattle can be used on marginal land where crops cannot be grown well to turn solar energy in the form of grasses into a form we humans can digest (meat). For more on this read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollen. The problem is that in the present day, most cattle are fed corn or other calorie intense grains in order to produce meat. This is much less efficient than using marginal land grasses and requires fertile soils to produce the grains. Becoming vegetarian is not going to stop deforestation or global warming. Also, if you want to come up with "facts" about how much deforestation causes global warming, I suggest you use reputable sites that are not biased. Instead of vegetarian websites and Yahoo answers, try to find the same facts from a website created by the people who actually do the research. If you have an argument on why becoming a vegetarian will stop deforestation, I would like to see it. How will it decrease the world's need for food and land to produce that food on?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by vlizz

The only problem with your reasoning is that trees are a renewable resource when re-forestation is utilized, and fossil fuels are not. As long as trees are replanted, the net carbon balance is unchanged. Even if we all become vegetarians, growing populations are going to demand more food. Instead of growing crops to feed the animals, you are going to grow crops to feed yourself.

So clear cutting for cows (no re-forestation) is the same as having a growing population to feed? The comparision is between land use for not eating cows versus eating cows. You can't throw population in to that comparison because if eating cows uses more land than not eating cows, more people would still mean less land to not eat cows.

Contrary to popular belief, livestock is an efficient way to harvest solar energy when managed correctly. Cattle can be used on marginal land where crops cannot be grown well to turn solar energy in the form of grasses into a form we humans can digest (meat). For more on this read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollen. The problem is that in the present day, most cattle are fed corn or other calorie intense grains in order to produce meat.

Free range cows? How to change that industry at this point - they are after yield. If free range cows would be more efficient, why hasn't the industry gone that way?
LEAD digital library: Livestock’s long shadow - Environmental issues and options

This is much less efficient than using marginal land grasses and requires fertile soils to produce the grains. Becoming vegetarian is not going to stop deforestation or global warming.

Not eating cows will slow deforestation by a lot.

How will it decrease the world's need for food and land to produce that food on?

That is not the question. The question is: would not eating cows be far less impact than eating them? And maybe be managable.

This is even better:
Spirulina's Environmental Advantages

[The David]

I think 'Shared SR' is where you break with Steve Pavlina's theory. 'Shared SR' doesn't even have any logical definition.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by vlizz

The only problem with your reasoning is that trees are a renewable resource when re-forestation is utilized, and fossil fuels are not. As long as trees are replanted, the net carbon balance is unchanged.

That's a funny argument. Show me the rain forest we've planted.

Selective Logging Causes Widespread Destruction Of Brazil's Amazon: Study

Monbiot.com » Are You Paying to Burn the Rainforest?

[vlizz]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

That's a funny argument. Show me the rain forest we've planted.

Selective Logging Causes Widespread Destruction Of Brazil's Amazon: Study

Monbiot.com » Are You Paying to Burn the Rainforest?

It wasn't really an argument. I was just stating a fact. Trees are renewable, fossil fuels are not. I don't support the deforestation of the rain forest, but do you know what i support even less. Burning fossil fuels. These cannot be replanted and the damage they cause is not easily reversed.

[vlizz]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Global warming is primarily caused by deforestation. Not fossil fuels.

• In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

And deforestation is primarily caused by the demand for meat.

• Rainforest Destruction and Beef Consumption
  
• Meat consumption and Rainforest Depletion
  
• World needs a 10% meat diet to fight global warming
  
• Leading cause of deforestation.? - Yahoo! Answers
  
• World Watch Magazine: July/August 2004 | Worldwatch Institute

Actually, deforestation accounts for about 20% of the carbon dioxide emissions released in the world according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, whom I would trust a lot more than whatever propaganda website you got your facts from. I am not arguing that deforestation is a problem. I am saying that fossil fuel use is a much bigger problem that isn't as easily reversed.

[vlizz]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

So clear cutting for cows (no re-forestation) is the same as having a growing population to feed? The comparision is between land use for not eating cows versus eating cows. You can't throw population in to that comparison because if eating cows uses more land than not eating cows, more people would still mean less land to not eat cows.
Free range cows? How to change that industry at this point - they are after yield. If free range cows would be more efficient, why hasn't the industry gone that way?
LEAD digital library: Livestock’s long shadow - Environmental issues and options
Not eating cows will slow deforestation by a lot.
That is not the question. The question is: would not eating cows be far less impact than eating them? And maybe be managable.

This is even better:
Spirulina's Environmental Advantages

1. I acknowledge that plants are more efficient in producing food than animals. Becoming a vegetarian may slow deforestation, but it will not end it because you are still going to have to grow crops to feed yourself on the land. And you have to take into account that my original argument centered around the fact that fossil fuels are causing global warming and not omnivores. Deforestation accounts for 20% of our current C02 output, so stopping deforestation is not going to end the big problem.

2. You say that if grass raised cattle are so efficient than why hasn't the market gone that way? You answered you're own question earlier. They are after yield. They want to get the most pounds in the fastest way possible. Grass finishing takes a longer amount of time, but is more efficient if you look at the big picture. Cattle have a digestive system that is made to digest cellulosic plants. Humans can not. I could use the same question against the vegetarian movement. If it's so much more efficient than eating meat, then why hasn't the global market gone that way?

3&4. Actually, the question we were talking about first was whether or not fossil fuels or deforestation caused global warming. The facts are that deforestation accounts for 20% of greenhouse gas emission. (Tropical Deforestation and Global Warming) I am not saying that deforestation is not a problem. My problem is that people seem to think that it is "the" problem and that if we eliminate meat from our diet we will somehow eliminate global warming. Becoming vegetarian will help ease the problem of deforestation to an extent, but it will not eliminate it and it will have a minimal impact in solving the overall problem of global warming. People seem more willing to blame global warming on a problem happening in countries half a world away and saying that they are easily solved if we simply change our diets. They don't want to put the blame where it belongs, on our extensive use of energy in the form of fossil fuels. If we don't reduce emissions but say that all our problems will be solved by stopping deforestation, global warming will continue to happen at a rate even faster than before. Developed countries are addicted to energy, and using less and less of it and eventually finding sources that don't increase the net carbon dioxide content of the air is the answer to the problem of global warming, not stopping deforestation.

[Dharma]

(I finally get to quote myself! )

Originally Posted by Dharma

Your friend is playing the perpetrator-victim game in a reality where that cannot exist. If it's all you there is no perpetrator, there is no victim, but in SR we can always pretend there is one if we want.

Global warming is another victim-perp game. We make the Earth our victim. ROTFL!!!! She is no victim, she knows what's going on and she knows what she's doing.

We area heading for a grand-slam change in consciousness, the Earth is changing in response to that. We are too, but could a species be more clueless??? (rhetorical) We make up these stories of how we are hurting the planet to get us all distracted and not focus on the movement we feel inside ourselves.

You will help the Earth more if you stay focused on evolving yourself rather than focusing on the fear, guilt, and victimization of the very imagined, present-moment-denying possibility of destroying your home... which ain't gonna happen.

[John Freestone]

Weird to be discussing SR and CO2 like this, but no matter. The stopping deforestation argument is a strong one, in my view, irrespective of our eating habits. Thanks for reminding me, because I really should support the cause more actively than I do, and I'm going to spend some time looking into my charities and do more soon. I don't know about anyone else, but it's easy to get carried away with the arguments and not do more.

It's also easy to argue about whether this strategy is better than that, so that we can avoid doing either. It's easy for us to worry about whether we should be turning lights off (sorry for the tongue-in-cheek dig at Vegas, but how much energy is that place burning for no good reason at all 24/7) or changing our cars, diets, political party, charities... instead of doing as much as we can in every area of our lives. "As much as we can" is, for us mortals, a moveable feast (vegan, of course) - or we'd not have our computers on long enough to be discussing it - but we'd also not consume anything ever and die after spending a week in the dark. We find a balance that's manageable for us.

I do wonder, though, given the west's addiction to oil, whether some of the meat-is-killing-the-planet fervour is misdirected. It could be easier to give up meat than driving your car, for instance. It could also be better to find ways to stop deforestation as a direct intention rather than thinking "If I do this, that will follow". There could be, for instance, great incentives for loggers to continue to log, but find another crop if burgers aren't in fashion anymore.

I'm a mostly-veggie, by the way. I've recently cut down on fish due to the environmental impact it has, and also because when I have it less often I appreciate it more.

One thing I think is really good is to see the global climate crisis not just as a technical problem to fix (though that's great if we can!), but also a personal lesson about the destructiveness of exercising power over, our addiction to the growth principle (population and economical growth), the importance of balance and sustainability, and the respect we should regain for Power(s) Greater Than Us (Gaia, God, Universe, Nature, or whatever). There's an inner personal change that we can make, that makes putting a banana-skin in the compost bin, or not having that second cup of coffee, or a host of other little daily acts real rituals of Devotion and Atonement before That Which Sustains. They become acts of inner personal growth, soul over ego. Maybe Gaia smiles, maybe she doesn't, but I find I'm more comfortable walking on her face when I bother to treat her kindly.

And the hard, scientific objection that that's all gooey new age nonsense is the most arrogant defence of all, and largely what has brought us to this crisis. Just looking for technical ways off the hook is bound to leave us no better off morally, we would not have learned the lesson at all, and could backfire.

[DRK]

The argument is not just fossil fuels vs. deforestation. The initial statement was , "By avoiding meat you can solve 99% of the environment related problems." The waters were immediately muddied by the next sentence which said, "All other things like fossil fuels are excuses to avoid the guilt feelings by the Meat eaters."

Really, fossil fuels are part of the problem with eating meat. Most meat is raised on grain (talking about how things really are, not how things could be). That grain is raised w/ petrochemicals, and fossil fuel-burning farm equipment. The grain is then transported, using fossil fuels, to the cattle. Eventually the cattle are transported to market. If you eliminate the meat, you eliminate a tremendous amount of fossil fuel use. Yes, the grain is still raised and transported, but you get a whole lot more calories of food per gallon of fuel used, because it takes so many pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. Meat also requires much more refrigeration at all times, from slaughter until cooking. Meat eating is just not nearly as energy-efficient as being vegan.

And, of course, there are other environmental concerns stemming from meat eating, like water use. Remember, the original discussion was about environmental problems in general, not just global warming.

Shoot, I had something SR related to say, too, and now I've forgotten it.

[Brutha]

In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

The moral argument of why a developing country have to keep say (numbers are made up) 50% of it's country filled with trees while the developed countrys have 5% filled with trees isn't quite that strong.
Especially when you are a US citizen and the US still produces the most CO2.

Even when most western leaders would want to reduce deforestation it's not that easy to do it in a way that the developing countries are happy with.

[vlizz]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The moral argument of why a developing country have to keep say (numbers are made up) 50% of it's country filled with trees while the developed countrys have 5% filled with trees isn't quite that strong.
Especially when you are a US citizen and the US still produces the most CO2.

Even when most western leaders would want to reduce deforestation it's not that easy to do it in a way that the developing countries are happy with.

I totally agree. We, as people from developed countries, are in no position to tell developing countries they can't harvest trees. Its like the pot calling the kettle black. If we are so concerned about deforestation, we should focus on increasing the number of trees in our country. We shouldn't tell the other country to keep their forests so that the co2 we produce won't have as big as an impact.

[Joeschmoe]

Actually the US has some of the largest, oldest forests in the world. Most of our produce is raised in the middle of the country which was plains before. We are also among the most protective of our forests (which i would say is part of the problem). We also have more national forests per acre then just about any country in the world. The issue is not about how we treat our own trees.

The issue is that we are so protective of our forests and won't curb our consumption winch puts poorer countries in the position of clearing forest or missing out economically. So while a few people trying to look good are saying that you have to save your forests, the consumption habits of 300 million people are telling you to cut them down. One gets you a pat on the back, the other puts food on your tables.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

There is a long tradition that as we develop consciousness of reality we also gain 'supernatural' powers, siddhi in Sanskrit, and spiritual teachers traditionally warn the disciple that these are a trap for the ego if you get too invested in doing stuff with them.

Oh, you are a fast learner. But lest you be mistaken, when I mentioned the above point to you in the other thread, I omitted to tell you that not all the spiritual teachers share this view.

Buddha typifies the "no siddhi" approach - you'll hardly find any paranormal feat reported to be performed by him. Jesus typifies the other extreme - he performed plenty of siddhis quite openly, and so did his apostles.

Somewhere in between, you get the Indian spiritual teachers - some veer towards "no siddhi" (considering siddhis to be a distraction from spiritual growth) and some are very much towards "siddhi" (considering siddhis to be signs of spiritual growth).