Perhaps the starkest illustration of the difference between
the science, farmers and Buddhists is in the way they view different ecosystem components,
and particularly animals.
Farmers who practice industrial agriculture are primarily
concerned with inputs, yields and overall efficiency of production. The pursuit
of financially efficient production to its logical end takes no consideration
of the health and wellbeing of animals except in as much as this impacts on
short-term yields relative to short-term costs. The animal is simply a unit of
production, and it is treated in a way that maximises the cost:benefit ratio
with a strong time preference bias to short term financial rewards. Agro-industry
takes a fundamentally utilitarian view of all production inputs, with a strong
focus on maximising profitability.
Ecological agriculture, including Rhabi’s agro-ecology, Fukuoka’s
natural farming, and Mollison’s permaculture, still take a somewhat utilitarian
view of ecosystem elements. However, this view tends to focus on the system as
a whole, what needs to be added to maintain it, and what can be sustainably
harvested in an attempt to create a state of dynamic equilibrium.
Three key things distinguish ecological from industrial
agriculture.
The first is the explicit supposition, broadly supported by
ecological theory and research, that multispecies assemblages (complex
ecosystems) are inherently more stable and productive per unit area than the
simplified ecosystems such as those used in agro-industry.
The second flows from the first. As a consequence of the
inherent productivity of more complex ecosystems it crucial that a broader
perspective of both inputs and yields be used in assessing the value of
agro-ecology. It considers a much broader spatial, temporal and societal
cost:benefit analysis in trying to value the farm ecosystem.
For example, in comparing industrial agriculture to
permaculture, Mollison considers more than just cash accounting, which is the general
standard for industrial agriculture. Permaculture is also assessed on energy,
environmental, conservation and social accounting. Mollison reasons that a
short-term financial analysis (cash accounting) overlooks key costs and
benefits that simply are not efficiently captured or are completely overlooked
by a single market price for a unit of production.
Finally, ecological approaches to agriculture also consider
the health and wellbeing of animals. Their practices are explicitly based on a
philosophy of allowing animals to live a full natural life, a life that mimics
the patterns and relationships in nature, up to the point where they are
harvested (slaughtered) as part of the utilitarian yield of food for human
consumption.
By contrast, Buddhism is unequivocal about the relative
worth of sentient animals. They are not viewed simply as components of
functional ecosystems. Rather they are living bodies with the capacity for fear
and longing, and thus suffering. A farmer’s interaction with these sentient
beings can either be harmful or kind. The degree to which the farmer creates
further suffering for both themselves, the animals with which they interact and
the world more generally, will depend on the nature of the interaction.
Thus, Buddhism’s generally more holistic life philosophy is
quite specific about farming animals for slaughter. It is very clear that
livelihoods that involve raising animals for slaughter or working in industries
that are involved in slaughter or the products of slaughter are unwise as they
promote suffering in the world. Buddhism is also clear that there is nothing to
stop people doing these things, but they have inevitable consequences (sometimes
interpreted as karma).
No comments:
Post a Comment