Showing posts with label environmental crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental crisis. Show all posts

Thursday, February 13, 2014

The Human Titanic: steering a safe passage for civilisation. Part 2

Why the Human Titanic?

In the most simple form, I call our ship the Human Titanic not only because I fear it is on track to the iceberg, but because of the inequality on board, which means too few of the passengers (including us on the second deck) identify with the fate of the whole ship. Those with power to change the course of the vessel, like Rupert Murdoch, do not try very hard, and those who would like to change the path, or slow its speed, have very little power to do so. And the people most vulnerable to collision have almost no understanding of the risk - but, if they did, they too could not do anything about it.

 Ignoring the warnings

A tiny nudge of the Human Titanic's trajectory might see it (us) just miss the iceberg. On the real Titanic there should have been a pair of binoculars for the lookout on the Crow's Nest, but it was unavailable due to a not uncommon human error.  The captain had one in the lower-situated bridge. Of course, the lookout might not have spotted the dark ice, but it's only one example of the brinkmanship that was underway on that boat, just as it is now with the climate and other aspects of adverse global environmental change. If the lookout had raised the alarm in time the captain would have reacted; even the first claste passengers would been relieved. No-one wanted to try escaping on a lifeboat lowered into cold dark water.
 

Today, the first claste are essentially saying "full steam ahead" - more speed and growth of the global economy. They discount and underestimate the value of information delivered by new technology (eg satellite estimates showing the loss of mass of Antarctica and Greenland due to melting ice) just as on the real boat in 1912 they paid too little attention to that then newfangled invention, Marconi's wireless. They also failed to make good use of old technology, like the binoculars. Today, we fail to make use of old technology like weather records. But then, just as now, part of the risk is the extent of global inequality, as Tom Athanasiou appreciates, but Paul Gilding does not seem to.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Buddhism and science


About 15 months ago (at the United Nations Day of Vesak celebration in Hanoi, 2008) I was asked to be a science advisor to the International Association of Buddhist Universities. I have finally got around to posting something on their website http://www.iabu.org/content/introduction
Part of the reason I am happy to do this is because there seems such little understanding of science in the Buddhist world. I gave a talk in Bangkok on Buddhism and the environmental crisis in May 2009 and at the end I asked if anyone in the audience (about 60 people) had a science degree. Not a single person raised their hand.
This is an extract:
The best Buddhism (in my opinion) and the best science (in my view) have a lot in common. Both are concerned with understanding the nature of phenomena. Both are concerned with causes, and the causes of causes. Both can reach a profound level of understanding, and yet both also reach a point at which mystery is reached. Neither science nor Buddhism can explain everything; or perhaps Buddhism can but that understanding can never quite be put into words. Certainly with science there is a vast mystery remaining. Albert Einstein is supposed to have likened scientific knowledge to a grain of sand on a beach. What is unknown is the rest of the beach. Yet, he said, that one grain is very precious.
One thing I think science can learn from Buddhism is ethics .. I think the best science is ethical. I also think Buddhism can be a lot more ethical - but that is another story.
Just in case any of you don't think science is of any value to a good Buddhist, you might reflect that the fact that you can read this is because you have acquired secular knowledge. Or, put it this way. You have acquired knowledge, both secular and spiritual. The world needs both forms to thrive, and even if you may be a monk, some secular knowledge, including of science, can help you to be of more value. Now, if you perhaps think that being Buddhist and being of value are incompatible, then your understanding of Buddhism is different to mine. If, like me, you think Buddhism can help you practice metta, bodhicitta, or loving kindness, then you might reflect that science too - at its best - can also help this practice. After all, if you have ever had an antibiotic, or a vaccination, then you have benefited from ethical science.


I published a longer article, here.