SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION - Ancient Wisdom
United Nations Environment Programme released a very detailed study on the unsustainability of consumption pattern, stating that by the year 2050, the planet inhabited by 9 billion people, nearly 80% of them in middle class, will consume about 140 billion tons of mineral resources. The planet earth simply does not have this kind of resources. The complete report, titled "Decoupling: Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impact from Econommic Growth" can be downloaded from: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/Decoupling/tabid/560...
Some may argue that developed nations having consumed most of the resources are now trying to restrict the populations in developing countries from enjoying the fruits of their economic prosperity. Irrespective, the focus definitely appears to be shifting from "Sustainanble Development" model of economic growth to "Sustainable consumption". In fact an organization called World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which is an organization of controversial multi-national companies argued strongly in favour of sustainable consumption in its report titled "Sustainable Consumption: Facts & Trends", downloadable from:
http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/I9Xwhv7X5V8cDIHbHC3G/WBCSD_Sustainable...
The report, interestingly uses phrases like "Choice Editing".
All the ancient thought systems including theosophy taught asutere and responsible living. Choice editing is nothing but self-control. Is the wheel coming full circle?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael A. Williams on
-
As for the "ancient thought systems, including theosophy" teaching austere and responsible living, it's well known that by the early 20th century, if not before, the prominent members of the Theosophical Society were quite well-to-do. Many owning mansions and castles in England and throughout Europe.
Was this a matter of the leadership living the "high life," while telling the general membership to live an "austere" and simple lifestyle?
-
Permalink Reply by Capt. Anand Kumar on
-
Agreed. And this imbalance in walking the talk, resulted in the processes which has brought the TS to the situation it finds itself in. But look at the lives of Gautam Budha, Jesus Christ, Adi Shankaracharya, Mahatma Gandhi etc. and "Sustainable Consumption" emerges as the core of their lifestyle. Same is true of many ancient Indian rishis. Similar thought was perhaps behind the strict code of conduct for catholic priests. I am sure Tibetan Monasetry, which was behind the formation of the TS enforced Sustainable Consumption as well.
One of the reasons the current flavour of the season Osama Bin Laden, was able to motivate so many people for the cause he espoused is because ordinary people believed that he lived an austere lifestyle as taught in Islam. In contrast to the other leaders of the Islamic world, he had little to show for wealth and lifestyle. So, austerity and Sustainable Consumption does appear to be a natural concepts with wide appeal.
Michael A. Williams said:As for the "ancient thought systems, including theosophy" teaching austere and responsible living, it's well known that by the early 20th century, if not before, the prominent members of the Theosophical Society were quite well-to-do. Many owning mansions and castles in England and throughout Europe.
Was this a matter of the leadership living the "high life," while telling the general membership to live an "austere" and simple lifestyle?
-
-
I didn't mean to imply that "poverty living = spirituality" and that "wealthy living = non-spirituality." Going around 24/7 in a sackcloth with ashes on our forehead and a begging bowl will not make us more "spiritual" nor "save" the world. This may be the dharma for a minute few in certain Eastern countries, but it's not for the majority of humanity, East or West.
It's been the wealthy, in the background, that have kept the Western Mystery Schools and underground teachings alive through the centuries. Blavatsky and the TS would have gained little ground without its well-to-do patrons, to name one example close to home here.
A big part of the problems that are facing the TS, either in Adyar or the ULT, is not that the prominent leaders are well off and supported by rich patrons, while advocating an austere almost poverty life to its members. It is, in my view, the fact they haven't encourage it's general membership to themselves live prosperous lives, in all areas, including financial.
An organization cannot expect to move along and grow if only depending on it's wealthy members alone. The general membership has to be able to afford the dues and all the books and materials that are offered also.
There's a lot of middle ground to be considered when it comes to one's lifestyle and sustainability. Let's not "demonize" having money as such. Gandhi has been mentioned as an example to follow in lifestyle. Well, here's something he said to consider:
"Capital, per se, is not evil, it is the wrong use of capital that is evil." ~ Gandhi
-
-
Austere living is not living in poverty. It is to follow the basic concept to consume only what one needs. Gandhi's wearing of loincloth only was more of a political statement, to depict the status of his countrymen, whom he was claiming to represnt. The fact that he could manage his life and achieve so much with minimal worldly possessions is the message. Prince Siddhartha gave up his kingdom to become Gautama Buddha.
I will disagree with lifestyle and sustainability issue. A lifestyle with 16 tons of per capita mineral consumption per year cannot be sustained anymore. And no amount of clairvoyance, esoteric practices etc. are going to help. Only a drastic change in lifestyle will enable us to survive. The "New Occultism" as coined by Joe , may perhaps consider "Sustainable Consumption" as its core ideology.
Michael A. Williams said:I didn't mean to imply that "poverty living = spirituality" and that "wealthy living = non-spirituality." Going around 24/7 in a sackcloth with ashes on our forehead and a begging bowl will not make us more "spiritual" nor "save" the world. This may be the dharma for a minute few in certain Eastern countries, but it's not for the majority of humanity, East or West.
It's been the wealthy, in the background, that have kept the Western Mystery Schools and underground teachings alive through the centuries. Blavatsky and the TS would have gained little ground without its well-to-do patrons, to name one example close to home here.
A big part of the problems that are facing the TS, either in Adyar or the ULT, is not that the prominent leaders are well off and supported by rich patrons, while advocating an austere almost poverty life to its members. It is, in my view, the fact they haven't encourage it's general membership to themselves live prosperous lives, in all areas, including financial.
An organization cannot expect to move along and grow if only depending on it's wealthy members alone. The general membership has to be able to afford the dues and all the books and materials that are offered also.
There's a lot of middle ground to be considered when it comes to one's lifestyle and sustainability. Let's not "demonize" having money as such. Gandhi has been mentioned as an example to follow in lifestyle. Well, here's something he said to consider:
"Capital, per se, is not evil, it is the wrong use of capital that is evil." ~ Gandhi
-
-
Your points are well taken, but there's a different angel on all this. I'm not the first person to say this, but it's not so much a scarcity of resources, but a scarcity of spiritual and emotional maturity among the leaders and movers and shakers in both governments and private industry worldwide.
We have the intellectual side going as to how to solve the resources problem. It's the pettiness, greed, fear, power grabbing, and so forth, that is preventing any real and immediate implementation of the solutions.
Yes, I agree, we as individuals can do something. I gave up driving years ago, and walk a lot and take the bus. In other areas, I live fairly simply. I realize that people have to do what's right and best in their particular situation, of course.
The fact is that none of those used resources have disappeared from the planet, only changed form. We've barely scratched the surface of the possibilities of recycling. And, it's well documented that the conventional big energy companies have suppressed viable alternative energies sources for decades.
For the really big picture solutions, it will take massive world cooperation, which doesn't seem too likely any time soon.
-
-
Thank You Michael. Your renunciation of the car is a source of inspiration for many of us.
True, our leadership is perjaps incompetent in these matters, but that is a reflection on us. As long as we as a society ourselves remain greedy and selfish, we cannot hope to have to have a leadership that will be different from us.
The answer as you have suggested, lies in small individual efforts like yourself, which will inspire some of us and so on.
Many years ago, one of the Prime Ministers of India, Late Rajiv Gandhi, to improve the literacy level of the population gave a slogan, "Each One, Teach One". This idea had more impact than all of the government's efforts. Unfortunately it was not sustained.
But we need to make some indivdual efforts towards "Sustainable Consumption", irrespective of what others may say or do.
Michael A. Williams said:Your points are well taken, but there's a different angel on all this. I'm not the first person to say this, but it's not so much a scarcity of resources, but a scarcity of spiritual and emotional maturity among the leaders and movers and shakers in both governments and private industry worldwide.
We have the intellectual side going as to how to solve the resources problem. It's the pettiness, greed, fear, power grabbing, and so forth, that is preventing any real and immediate implementation of the solutions.
Yes, I agree, we as individuals can do something. I gave up driving years ago, and walk a lot and take the bus. In other areas, I live fairly simply. I realize that people have to do what's right and best in their particular situation, of course.
The fact is that none of those used resources have disappeared from the planet, only changed form. We've barely scratched the surface of the possibilities of recycling. And, it's well documented that the conventional big energy companies have suppressed viable alternative energies sources for decades.
For the really big picture solutions, it will take massive world cooperation, which doesn't seem too likely any time soon.
-
Permalink Reply by William John Meegan on
-
Actually you are wrong to believe that the ancients did not over develop as modern man is presently doing.
Look at Ankor Wat and what made that advance civilization disappear. They started out with a good idea but as in all things there is a sine wave that goes from peak intelligence to barbarism and history seesaws like that.
-
-
Thank You William. Perhaps an impression is conveyed that the ancients were less developed. But, I could not find in my own posts.
Nevertheless, this discussion is to explore whether "Sustainable Consumption" as taught in almost all ancient systems and practically lived by many great tecahers has any relevance today in saving the humanity from great ills.
William John Meegan said:Actually you are wrong to believe that the ancients did not over develop as modern man is presently doing.
Look at Ankor Wat and what made that advance civilization disappear. They started out with a good idea but as in all things there is a sine wave that goes from peak intelligence to barbarism and history seesaws like that.
-
-
Capt. Kumar, I can not claim any kind of "noble renunciation" when I gave up my car. Frankly, it was for financial reasons. It was becoming an economic hardship for me at the time, with rising insurance costs and the like. I must say that the additional walking I've done since then has been great for my health. If I do get one again, it will be an ecologically oriented one, for sure.
I don't begrudge anyone their car. They can be needed for practical reasons and for pleasure. Living in a city, getting out into recreational and nature areas is not an option most of the time without some kind of vehicle. It's a matter of how ecological sound and financially feasible for most people they can be made.
As I said, the big "solutions" will have to be made on the highest political and social levels, involving Governments and private industry. How and when, and if, this will be done remains an open question. Personally, I remain an optimist in the long run.
As for Mr. Meegan's comments, I'm not familiar with Ankor Wat, so cannot make any comments of my own on that. The rise and fall of civilizations seems to be a perennial theme espoused by many thinkers. Whether the present era will escape that is up for debate, in my view.
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
