Title "Engaged Ethics and Democracy Vs. the Total Society and the Rule of Arbitrary Law : Examples and References" ( from Tribe Ethics and Morals )
Keywords : universal human rights and "well-ordered societies", John Stuart Mill, United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and related treaties, Total Society ( Medieval Christianity, Radical Islam, Stalinism, Fascism, etc. ), internationally oriented democracy, Nobel Peace Laureates HH the Dalai Lama and Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, Rio Earth Summit, Dr. Vandana Shiva and sustainable environmental democracy, prosocial behavior, Aquarian Conspiracy.
Summary: This is an brief overview of some of the main principles in universal human rights as related to Total Societies, with some key references to significant people and books. It is based on the concept that arbitrary and oppressive social order, whether politically or religiously based, is self-contradictory, unstable and irresponsible by definition, and that history shows Total Societies to be inherently dangerous and destructive, and that they can and must be fought when overly aggressive.
A counterpoint is outlined in terms of John Stuart Mill, key United Nation treaties and the necessity of balancing shared human and social concerns based on global interdependence and "inalienable" human rights ( as advanced primarily by references and citations to be followed up by interested readers ). The basic ideas of universal rights and responsibilities and "sustainable environmental democracy" are then put forward together. These are promoted as a necessary alternative to any and all total societies and as an alternative to advancing social and cultural destruction throughout the planet.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759; (b1706 - d1790)
"Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power."
Aung San Suu Kyi, elected leader of Burma ( presently imprisoned by military junta ), Nobel Pease Laureate
"No defeat baby, no surrender."
Bruce Springsteen
"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi
"Today's world requires that we accept the oneness of humanity. . . In the context of our new interdependence, considering the interests of others is clearly the best form of self-interest." HH the Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Laureate and Mahayana Buddhist teacher
Re TMIbo on Tribe Ethics and Morals:
"Evil is as evil does. I would define evil as that which seeks chaos over order. Or destroys order to create chaos, take your pick."
K T answers
Democracy is a kind of "social chaos", compared with Fascism, Stalinism, Medieval Roman Catholicism, and "Radical" Islam ( e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban ), and the People's Republic of China. Those latter systems are all about social control of the many by the few, and their capabilities for crushing human rights are renowned throughout the world and throughout history. They also don't work, as history has shown again and again by the collapse of totalitarian regimes.
Know this: where books are burned or banned, individuals and groups are or will be jailed or banned or tortured or even burned to death. The Christian Middle Ages were also known as the Dark Ages, and a lot of the history represented the subjugation of pre Christian beliefs and lifeways, including the Burning Times, and also official Ex Cathedra opposition to scientific thought and research.
Thus, there is an obvious and inherent set of problems in elevating social order AS SUCH over AND ABOVE basic human freedoms such as democracy and freedom of speech, and that clearly includes so called moral or idealistic systems of belief or "faith based societies". . . even though basic freedoms are also problematical in practice.
So, a social system based on psychological or cultural control of private persons, one which opposes freedom of thought or belief( intellectual anarchy etc. ), will eventually progress towards tyranny unless opposed. It has happened all over the world in different ways. This is a now a major problem in the world today, with the rise of broadly based low-intensity to medium intensity paramilitary attacks on democratic societies and institutions worldwide.
We all have to pay attention to this, or eventually humanity can lose much or most that has been gained in progressive human culture and society, because progressive society and culture can be restricted or banned outright, as happens in one party or one religion states and social orders.
The first problem is
What is the social recourse for mistakes or bias or unlawful behavior by a ruling social order?
The second problem is
Who shall decide which kind of social order shall prevail?
The third problem is
What shall be done when a ruling social order determines to make war on another, outside social order?
After all, every one can see that Fascism, Stalinism, Medieval Roman Catholicism, and Sunni Islam, and Post-Marxist Chinese "Communism" are all fundamentally incompatible! Who then is to rule? "There can be no agreement on the basis of exclusivist dogmas. Each excludes the other." ( K T )
So to this we can add a fourth problem: Isn't it true that while claiming to support and maintain order, totalitarian systems actually create massive chaos and destruction?
This is clearly demonstrated in Cambodia under Pol Pot, in Afghanistan under Mullah Omar and the Taliban, in Germany under Hitler and the Third Reich, in Russia and Eastern Europe under Stalin, and in China under Mao during the Cultural Revolution.
And that is why the United Nations, following World War II, in 1948 approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ( See www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm ) This reads in part,
"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. . ."
The "order over chaos" social alternatives to democratic society and human freedom, whether derived from religious or nationalist or internationalist dogma, ALL fully fit the definition of Total Society, in which the individual has few or no rights, and the state claims basically arbitrary control over the most essential aspects of human life and freedom.
This is a crucial point : absolutist or primarily one-sided social control is a form or mechanism that can be "religious", or "nationalist", or "internationalist". The *process* is what matters, *not* the dogmatic content per se. Such a process is what distorts and even destroys human society, specifically and especially while claiming to promote "coherence" and "order" and "harmony". Violent and arbitrary oppression of many diverse people both near and far is by definition the opposite of those claimed values.
That is, an authoritarian-leaning society or Total Society, to the extent that it is authoritarian or Total in practice, is
a) NOT well-ordered society
b) NOT designed to advance the good of its members and
c) NOT effectively regulated by a ( truly ) public conception of justice.
"Justice" means "rights" and the balancing of rights through corresponding responsibilities among people. This is well developed in the writings of John Stuart Mill. But a Total Society is one in which rights are arbitrarily abridged. It was not so long ago that the Civil Rights movement ( 19th and 20th C. ) brought upheaval to the American South.
Ironically, it was a broad and ever larger set of American citizens who worked for peace and freedom for blacks in the Southern states for blacks ( often illegally or under direct attack by police ), and many blacks were Christian but still oppressed by a basically Christian society / slave system that was clearly worse than Imperial Rome. In Rome, slaves could read and write, and some were Greek scholars. In the American South, black Christian slaves were not allowed to learn to read and write ( the Bible, etc. ) by their Christian masters. So that is an example of a Total Society in recent American history, and one that was conclusively overthrown.
In the above example, it is clearly unfair and therefore unreasonable that some Christians were allowed to go to school and some were not. That's arbitrary abridgement. Basic rights means no arbitrary abridgement, i.e. that the laws and basic rules of fairness apply throughout society, to all human beings.
The main point here is that laws and social systems are always distorted in total Societies, that basic rights are arbitrarily abridged so that the few apply law to the many, while basically remaining above the law. And that is the opposite of a reasonable civil society, whether it is Medieval Catholicism or Nazi Germany or black slavery in the American South or Stalinist control of Eastern Europe.
Rights fundamentally opposed by large scale religious and political organizations can include some or all of the following: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association and Assembly, Freedom of Worship, Freedom of Political Self-Determination through Elected Representation. ( In fact, the Vatican did not formally acknowledge the legitimate rule of democracy until 1962. )
A key example of abridged rights is the "establishment" of Nazi rule in Germany. This was *not* authorized in the national German legislature, as many think. In fact, the National Socialist regime came to power in significant part by literally holding the German legislature hostage until that body resigned to Nazi rule. It was a state coup. How is that so called "order" IN ANY WAY legitimate? Since it is not, we can all agree that order and law are *not* the same thing as legitimacy, and can in fact promote the opposite.
Thus, a total society can be established by a social force that works like organized crime, and since large scale crime is inherently antisocial, this is contradicts the most basic notions of a well-ordered society.
When TMIbo ( on Tribe Ethics and Morals ) says "I would define evil as that which seeks chaos over order", this is a deep self contradiction. Clearly, the National Socialists sought "order", and their appeal to the German people was to lead the people from economic chaos and national weakness to strength and power. The Nazis represent an evil will to power, a power that claimed to protect the people from weakness and anarchy, but evil and self-defeating because universally destructive.
Historical perspective matters greatly in this discussion, and so do the perspectives of those who have worked long term and very effectively for peace and freedom, such as Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Einstein.
Dr Einstein said:
"Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions."
"The unlimited desire for ever greater power seeks to become active and aggressive wherever and whenever the physical possibility offers itself."
"Democratic institutions and standards are the result of historic developments to an extent not always appreciated in the lands that enjoy them."
TMIbo publically and clearly elevates "order" over "chaos", and we can all agree that the problem is not limited to Nazi Germany or to any one specific time or place. Feudal Totalitarian Christianity, Total Society in many Islamic Nations, National Socialism and Stalinist Dictatorship of the Proletariat emphasize "order" over "chaos" ( i.e. non-Christians or Freethinkers, the so-called "International Jewish Conspiracy", feminists and those who seek freedom from Islamic rule or jihad, etc. ).
We know this because all these institutions historically have emphasized war and bloodshed to subjugate or completely eliminate opposing positions, individuals, groups and even whole societies. Up through and including wholescale genocide. The Twentieth Century was largely largely dominated by Total Societies and their massive efforts to reshape the world into their own images, up through and including unlimited warfare ( along with contervailing forces such as the Allies in World War II ).
A casual, rough estimate of the 20th Century destruction of unarmed civilians under Communist rule ( in Russia, China, Cambodia ) runs from fifty million lives to eighty million lives, perhaps more. How is that "well-ordered" ? Yes, there is a strong sense of "order" in Marxist Stalinist rule, but the cost is astonishingly severe. And Communism still failed in Russia, throughout Eastern Europe, and so forth.
The same is true of Fascism in Spain and Germany. Yes, the Fascists ruled ( established and maintained complete "social order" ), but The Third Reich fell most spectacularly, even after amazing efforts to establish control over all of Europe, and so forth. Even after all the bloodshed of World War II, which claimed over thirty million lives.
Thus we can see the repeatedly demonstrated truth of Gandhi's statement that tyrants eventually fail. This means, more generally, that no Total Society ( such as Medieval Roman Catholicism, or Fascism, or Stalinism, or Radical Islam ) is inevitable, stable, or unassailable.
I argue the reverse: I will argue that all total societies, including Post Marxist Chinese Communism and Radical Islam, are inherently unstable and are doomed to failure. One basic reason for this is very simple: the more a violent social order succeeds, the more other societies will become concerned and seek to counterbalance naked aggression.
Another fundamental reason is that oppressive social orders fail to develop the potential of many or most of their members. For example, about 51% of the world's population is female, yet women are oppressed by Total Societies. ( See "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith", by Irshad Manji, and "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. )
That total societies are inherently unstable is demonstrated by much historical evidence. This is true of Ancient Rome and Medieval Spain, which were based on continuous conquest, which cannot always proceed. It is structurally true today becasue of fundamental ( and basically unresolvable ) problems within Post Marxist Communism and within Islam ( e.g. the Sunni Shia divide as seen historically, as well as in present day Lebanon, Iraq, and so forth ).
It has never been shown that any culture based on war or conquest is ever really sustainable as a whole. Although Sunni Islam and Shia Islam are both quite powerful today, they are not unified, and for many centuries they have fought each other. Thus to a significant extent, they weaken themselves and each other in overall terms.
Devolution of imperial power is well demonstrated in major cases, with the development of near democracy or effective democracy asa replacement. Witness the development of self-rule in India and the many countries which became free of 16th century Spanish rule ( see encarta.msn.com/media_4615...empire.html ), or free of the British Empire and so on.
It is quite clear that the overall progression of human societies from the time of the Protestant Reformation to today is characterized by several trends:
1) the breakdown of large scale total societies, such as Medieval Catholism and royalist rule;
2) the breakdown of colonialism and international imperial rule;
3) the tremendous and widespread development of human rights efforts and organizations ( including nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs ) and progress towards universal human rights as principle, as model, and as main priority for large scale societies.
This is due to many major economic, cultural, and international factors, including the global rise of literacy and freer more powerful forms of communication and networking ( e.g. the internet ). It is also based on tested working models of democracy that balance rights and responsibilities through transparent and equitable means. These social models are in turn based on well developed definitions of "social contracts" as advanced by John Stuart Mill and others.
The point is to find and uphold a balance based on freedom and responsibility, consciously and mutually addressed. The claim is not that people and groups will in general come to "mutual understanding and consonance with other people" ( Einstein ), but rather all will have to come to terms with fair and reciprocal standards of rights and responsibilities which favor nor one group and which are as little arbitrary as possible, paricularly in terms of negative rights ( non-interference ).
But Non-interference is the opposite of social control as defined by any Total Society. Therefore it is in the interest of the many to seek the opposite of any one model for a total society. When the many can and do work together effectively, or at least begin to work together, then movement towards a total society can be slowed, or reversed, and basic freedoms strengthened or reestablished.
This means negotiated rights and responsibilities through a civil order that
a) accords equal rights to all individuals by default as a matter of course;
b) is negotiated through a system of law that is always independent of any specific political party ( e.g. the US Bill of Rights and the US Supreme Court );
c) is always independent of any specific religious system ( separation of church and state ), i.e. that fundamentally rejects Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. as foundational to society and social agreements;
d) actively promotes peace and co-operation and democracy in all parts of the world
( e.g. the United Nations and interventions by democracy-backed peacekeeping forces - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping ).
Furthermore, it also means, in our time,
e) the basic idea of "sustainable environmental democracy" as an alternative to any and all total societies based on squandering resources needed for future generations. This basic concept is called "intergenerational equity", or equity between generations. This has been developed by for example the Rio Earth Summit ( 1992 ) and environmental democracy has been advanced in particular by Dr. Vandana Shiva ( see following references ).
"Universal responsibility" and "universal human ethics" have been well communicated by for example HH the Dalai Lama, a Buddhist teacher awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He says
"Human beings by nature want happiness and do not want suffering. With that
feeling everyone tries to achieve happiness and tries to get rid of suffering, and everyone has the basic right to do this. In this way, all here are the same, whether rich or poor, educated or uneducated, Easterner or Westerner, believer or non-believer ... and so on. Basically, from the viewpoint of real human value we are all the same."-- His Holiness the Dalai Lama, from "Kindness, Clarity, and Insight."
( See also The Global Community & the Need for Universal Responsibility - by H.H. the Dalai Lama, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 1990. )
The point is that this kind of ethic is strongly prosocial, it actively seeks peace and freedom for all, not just this group or that. The alternative, isolationist viewpoint fails, just as failing to address the Nazi threat would have been a tragic failure for the US and others, just as failing to address the threat of Taliban style Islamic rule can become a major problem for any and all democratic societies.
HH the Dalai Lama belives in and works for peace. But peace is very different than pacifism. The Dalai Lama makes it very clear that he definitely supports the war effort that destroyed National Socialism in Germany. So did Dr. Albert Einstein.
Peace therefore is not the absence of war per se, it is the active promotion of freedom and democracy, including sometimes, acts of defensive warfare.
This is acceptable by definition at the United Nations, and it is only fair. It is universally agreed theat there is a need to fight for peace and freedom. This has major implications today in dealing with long-term aggressive and expansionist social orders that develop by swiftly or incrementally burying human rights. These must be dealt with using "scalable response".
There are several principal sets of documents that frame and illuminate the issues of negotiation based civil society. These include
1) "On Liberty and Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill
( see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill and plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/ ) ;
2) the founding documents and historical development of democracy in the American Colonies, esp. the sources of American style democracy in the Iroquois Confederacy;
3) the founding documents and historical development of the United Nations
( see www.unhchr.ch/map.htm );
To these I would add several additional current sources:
1) information on Nobel Peace Prize Winner Aung San Suu Kyi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
see also the book "Freedom From Fear and Other Writings", by Aung San Suu Kyi
www.amazon.com/Freedom-Fe.../0140253173
2) information on the Nobel Peace Prize Winner HH the Dalai Lama
( e.g. "The Global Community" www.dalailama.com/page.75.htm )
3) The Rio Earth Summit documents and process
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit
4) information and books related to Dr. Vandana Shiva
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva
5) Aquarian Conspiracy, by Marilyn Ferguson
www.amazon.com/Aquarian-C.../0874774586
But politics is not something that happens "out there". Professor Todd Gitlin famously pointed out that "politics isn't where you stand on the issues, politics is how you live your life". And that necessarily involves personal principles, models and priorities, not mere acknowledgement of social "realities" and "concerns". This is why I claim that the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi are relevant. I will offer some words from Aung San Suu Kyi and Marilyn Ferguson on the inner ethic of progressive social change.
Freedom From Fear Speech, by Aung San Suu Kyi
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Burm....html
". . .Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear ofdeath, fear oflosing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure.
"A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man.
"The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power is generally a firm belief in the sanctity of ethical principles combined with a historical sense that despite all setbacks the condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement. It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute.
"At the root of human responsibility is the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find a path towards it, and the will to follow that path if not to the end at least the distance needed to rise above individual limitations and environmental impediments. It is man's vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power."
. . . . this is . . . For All Our Relations, and not least for the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi. Sarva mangalam.
K T
"Our past is *not* our potential. In any given hour, with all the stubborn teachers and healers of history who have called us to our best selves, we can re-choose, to awaken. Awakening brings it's own assignments, chosen by us, unique to each of us. But whatever you have thought about yourself, and however long you may have thought it, you are not just "you". You are a seed, a silent promise. You are the conspiracy."
Marilyn Ferguson, the Aquarian Conspiracy
posted by:
|
-
Re: Engaged Ethics and Democracy Vs. the Total Society and the Rule of Arbitrary Law : situation ethics
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 12:00 PM
Re Jack:
"The one word would have been fine.
What would Buddha do?
China is a huge Yang force. Only a gentle Yin can prevail. Are you a gentle Yin?"
I see that you are not up for a full argument, so there is none.
Everything I said, including a reasoned response to the shaggy dog somehow-there-is-an-issue-with-Buddhist-teaching doubt, still stands.
So far so good.
"China is a huge yang force." Agreed. And they have nuclear weapons.
Does that mean one should only respond in yin or even pacifist terms to violence? No.
Once again, the Dalai Lama and Albert Einstein agree that force is sometimes necessary. Both stated very clearly that force was necessary in confronting Nazi Germany. This is entirely consistent with the teaching of Sakyamuni Buddha, As The Historical Record Shows.
Jeseus of Nazareth was a pacifist. Sakyamuni was *not* a pacifist. Sakyamuni accepted Situation Ethics and Scalable Force. Sakyamuni therefore in principle would agree that active defense of free peoples against Nazi Germany was ethically reasonable and maybe even necessary.
There is no contradiction between being ethical and peaceful, and using the universally accepted definitions of Reasonable Force. These are stated in US Law, i.e. that Reasonable Self Defense is No Offense, to paraphrase the basic meaning. Citizens by definition have SOME right to self defense, although they may be taken in by police and even tried in court due to concerns over excessive force.
Am I a gentle Yin, Jack?
To the 95% level, yes I am. But I am also a Protector of the Law, and I do a *lot* of Guardian practices. The Dalai Lama also does Guardian practices, and he is a Nobel Peace Laureate.
I have never cursed anyone with mantra in all these many years. But I do a lot of warding practices and am always willing to do reversal practices. It's spiritual insurance. Remember, Buddhists created the systems of Kung Fu.
Looks like we have reached a very special place, spiritually, ethically, and dialectically.
Nuff said!
K T -
-
Re: Engaged Ethics and Democracy via Earth Summit Principles
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 10:33 AM
Rio Earth Summit. '92. The Dalai Lama showed up, and Engaged the environmentalists and people from throughout the world.
Earth Summit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_...evelopment
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, often shortened to Rio Declaration, was a short document produced at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit. The Rio Declaration consisted 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world.
The 12 core principles of the Rio Declaration are as follows:
* 1. State Sovereignty
* 2. Right to development
* 3. Sustainable development
* 4. Right to life and a healthy environment
* 5. Duty not to cause environmental harm
* 6. Intergenerational equity
* 7. Precautionary principle
* 8. Common but differentiated responsibilities (meaning developed countries and undeveloped countries share common, but unequal burdens)
* 9. Duty to assess environmental impacts
* 10. Right of public participation/ Environmental democracy (Obligates governments to establish a process for citizens and NGOs to obtain environmental information)
* 11. Common heritage in mankind
* 12. Common concern of mankind.
www.un.org/documents/ga...6-1annex1.htm
REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT*
(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)
Annex I
RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,
Reaffirming the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972, a/ and seeking to build upon
it,
With the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership
through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of
societies and people,
Working towards international agreements which respect the interests of
all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental
system,
Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our
home,
Proclaims that:
Principle 1
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.
They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
Principle 2
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own
resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and
the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Principle 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.
Principle 4
In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection
shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be
considered in isolation from it.
Principle 5
All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of
eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable
development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and
better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.
Principle 6
The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the
least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given
special priority. International actions in the field of environment and
development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.
Principle 7
States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve,
protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view
of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have
common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries
acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of
sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the
global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they
command.
Principle 8
To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all
people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production
and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.
Principle 9
States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for
sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges
of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development,
adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and
innovative technologies.
Principle 10
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all
concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each
individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the
environment that is held by public authorities, including information on
hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity
to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and
encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely
available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings,
including redress and remedy, shall be provided.
Principle 11
States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental
standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the
environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied
by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social
cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.
Principle 12
States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international
economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development
in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation.
Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means
of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges
outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided.
Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental
problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.
Principle 13
States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation
for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also
cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further
international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of
environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control
to areas beyond their jurisdiction.
Principle 14
States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the
relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that
cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human
health.
Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
Principle 16
National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of
environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account
the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of
pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting
international trade and investment.
Principle 17
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be
undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant
adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent
national authority.
Principle 18
States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or
other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the
environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the international
community to help States so afflicted.
Principle 19
States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant
information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a
significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with
those States at an early stage and in good faith.
Principle 20
Women have a vital role in environmental management and development.
Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable
development.
Principle 21
The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be
mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable
development and ensure a better future for all.
Principle 22
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have
a vital role in environmental management and development because of their
knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support
their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation
in the achievement of sustainable development.
Principle 23
The environment and natural resources of people under oppression,
domination and occupation shall be protected.
Principle 24
Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States
shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the
environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further
development, as necessary.
Principle 25
Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and
indivisible.
Principle 26
States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by
appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Principle 27
States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of
partnership in the fulfilment of the principles embodied in this Declaration
and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable
development.
* * * * *
a/ Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.73.II.A.14
and corrigendum), chap. I. -
-
Any true environmental ethic is a truly universal ethic.
Sat, March 29, 2008 - 10:22 AM
From tribe ! *environmental protection* !
( concerning above thread by K T)
Re: Engaged Ethics and Democracy via Earth Summit Principles
Tue, March 25, 2008 - Brittany says :
"The Healthiest societies are the ones that most closely resemble healthy plant and animal ecosystems. The greater the diversity, the greater the order, and the greater the mutual interdependence = the greater the health. When we loose respect for each other, respect for the planet and respect for all ages we loose health. You cannot have health and repress or subject an aspect of the society or the food chain. You cannot have health when you are pumping in pesticides, for instance, because it goes through everything on the food chain. Life on earth does not exist in a vacuum, and each person likewise does not exist in a vacuum but effects others throughout the web. Health is a complex balance, un-health is singular. Just like monoculture is singular for loosing plant biodiversity."
KT responds
Re: Environmental Heath via interdependence
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 6:48 AM
Hi Brittany.
Yes!
Dr. Vandana Shiva has a book : "Monocultures of the Mind".
Thanks.
We all need environmental democracy because we all need environmental health.
I will post Brittany's response under some of the other tribes where this thread was established, such as Permaculture and Green Politics, and some outward-facing Buddhist tribes as well, such as Bodhisattvas and Engaged Buddhists.
Here's something new we all need to be concerned about ( see developing food crisis post below ). Buddhists and environmentalists ( among others ) claim to focus on Interdependence as a key principle or axiom. Interdependence is not just talk about "The Commons", it is a living, breathing reality, for better or for worse.
Any true environmental ethic is a truly universal ethic. It also looks very very much like a Mahayana Buddhist ethic. It also follows some very key indigenous principles of sustainability and bioregionalism, as in the Iroquois political system from which Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine learned about something called "Democracy".
It's like the statement in the Whole Earth Catalog : "Everything Is Deeply Intertwingled. We live one life."
All for one, one for all, that's the principle!
For All Our Relations. . .
K T
Title: "breaking news ! global food security / interdependence and new dangers to world wheat supply"
original post post to Tribe Discussion: ! * Environmental Protection * !
blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/tops....aspx
New wheat crisis plagues world food supply
Posted Mar 27 2008, 03:46 AM by Jon Markman
If it seems like you are paying more for your cereal, beer and pizza lately, shake your fist in the direction of Pakistan, Uganda and Argentina, because a weird confluence of international events are combining to slash the world supply of wheat and boost prices. The downside of globalization is that a crop failure 10,000 miles away can lead to pricier brewskis here.
It's actually a lot more serious than that. The New Scientist magazine reports that a wheat disease that started in central Africa actually threatens to destroy most of the world wheat crop, leaving millions to starve. A fungus called Ug99 has already spread from Africa to Iran and is bearing down on Pakistan, according to the report. This is bad news because Pakistan and Punjab wheat is extremely important to the entire food chain of the densely populous plains of South Asia.
According to reports, scientists hope to slow the spread of Ug99 by spraying new forms of fungicide but the only real firebreak will come when agronomists are able to create Ug99-resistant strains of wheat over the next few years. The disease, which is said to be a super-strong strain of black stem rust, first came to light in Uganda in 1999 and has since ruined crops in Kenya, Ethiopia and Yemen. Now winds are expected to take the spores to Egypt, Turkey, Syria and Iran. Chinese scientists are said to be on a crash program to develop Ug99-resistant wheat strains before the disease ravages its already weakened croplands.
Meanwhile, down in Argentina, a three-week protest by farmers has curtailed shipments of wheat into supermarkets, pushing that country into its worst political crisis since 2002. News media report that thousands of farmers are withholding meat and grains from wholesalers and blocking country roads to oppose a hike in export taxes. Argentina’s president, Cristina Kirchner, has accused farmers of extortion, while protesters fill streets, banging pots and pans.
Food shortages in Buenos Aires are worsening, and the media reports that shops have run out of beef and chicken, while fruits and vegetables are soaring in price. The government is said to be digging in its heels on the tax increases that it believes are necessary to support social programs such as fuel and health care subsidies, while farmers say they are being unfairly targeted. The upshot is that the turmoil has also curtailed exports, putting strains on world wheat prices.
For more on the worldwide food crisis, see my column of March 6, "Could we really run out of food?"
Randy Hayes, via Feather :
"People can call us alarmists if they like, but think about the function of an alarm. It's meant to alert you to danger, to wake you up to take action, and I think we need the alarm clocks ringing right now. We need the urgent call to action. People have got to understand that we don't have forever . . ."
-
-
From the heart? Regarding interdependence? Sure, why not?
Sat, March 29, 2008 - 12:35 PM
From Michael, on tribe buddhism 29 March wrt above thread :
K,
Perhaps you could speak from the heart about the subtle difference between interdependence and dependent related links, and how it might relate to our engaged behavior as citizens of a community or the world.
_/|\_
Michael
"Engaged behavior as citizens of a community or the world" Michael?
Ummm, if you look around, or even at the above thread, I have clearly posted this information to
Environmental Protection
Permaculture
Green Party
Bodhisattvas
Engaged Buddhists
Progressive Buddhist Thought, and
Ethics and Morals ( where it began ).
I trust we are all clear on the fact that since I am Mahayana Guru ( published in different countries as Buddhist liturgical scholar ), a "Green Buddhist", a bioregional organizer / major Earth Summit outreach pr guy ( not to mention Pipe Carrier of the Lakota Sioux ), you will have to look long and hard to find someone who is more a world citizen than I ( except for the Dalai Lama and a few other rare individuals ).
. . . And later, maybe in a few weeks, the overall thread will go to Politics and Radical Politics.
I am, in a Mahayana way, establishing very direct and substantial and effective connections between different groups that share similar or parallel values and world views, perhaps under different names or with different emphases.
Almost no-one on the various tribes, it seems, has taken the time or care to BEGIN TO establish such bridges of communication, much less maintain them ( which is the other half of the story, as Swarm and others will be quick to assert ).
I've only been on tribe dot net since January of last year. Can you think of anyone else who does this kind of major across the board interweaving of communication and establishment of communications commons? I have yet to meet such a person.
There was a major Tibetan Nyingma empowerment cycle early last year. I put the word out to over twenty five thousand people, mostly on tribe dot net, but also on yahoo. No one else did. No one on tribe "Tibetan Buddhism" even mentioned it! So who is doing the heavy lifting for the Mahayana and the Vajrayana and the Sangha around here, anyway?
When I posted word of major teachings by classical high end gurus on supposedly Buddhist tribes, I took serious flack from clueless and / or antisocial types. Remember the nonsense from "Sunshine" and "Paula C" ? I do. I have to deal with pseudo-Buddhists or patently false-to-the-dharma claimed Buddhists. With "friends like these . . ." SO I get it from all sides. I've learned to deal with it. That's one of the reasons my social technique is so sharply honed.
Yeah, "Sunshine" and "Paula C", as in freedom FROM speech. Attacks on classical high level dharma transmission. By nobodies.
How might that relate to YOUR "engaged behavior" ? Well I think the answer is very clear and can be stated on a junior high level : next time a Buddhist lineage holder or abbot gives a major mahayana set of transmissions, and the same are attacked on a "Buddhist" forum, maybe there should be some Mahayana Buddhists who defend the Mahayana. What would it cost you or anyone here, eh? A few keystrokes? Four minutes? Is that so much to ask? Is defending the propagation of the Buddhist Ten Precepts worth that, would you say?
I'm talking twenty or one hundred people speaking up and defending Buddhist vow transmission and announcements for same, not just one or two. One or two is really close to nothing when a tribe has, oh, say fifteen hundred members. But you know what? Sometimes one conscious and aware person can do the work of many who are, well, perhaps a little less responsive.
You want to know why The Folks Upstairs, like Tara and Yeshe Tsogyel, like me and are willing to help me, when they have little or lesser interest in other claimed Buddhists? The answer is very simple : I'm here for the Mahayana, IN PRACTICE. That's my job, and I get the job done. With or without the help of anyone else, I can get the job done.
I can give a Padmasambhava empowerment. I've done it ( although other gurus can do it a lot better ). I have sixty two mantras for Padmasambhava, and over thirty key transmissions for his primary doctrine, the Atiyoga / Great Perfection. From this you can well understand that I have a primary reliance or as you say dependence on Guru Padmasambhava, an Indian guru who is the primary founder of "Tibetan Buddhism".
You want to know about interdependence and karma from a Mahayana viewpoint, in this specific context? From a teacher of Buddhist ethics? Fine , I'll tell you. I'll give you the word straight from Guru Sakyamuni Buddha :
When someone with claimed Buddhist vows causes division and disharmony in the Buddhist sangha, and speaks and acts to arbitrarily divide groups of Buddhists from each other, to sow discord and doubt and confusion and cause problems for the sangha overall, That Is A Primary Offense. It is most serious karma. It tends in the direction of hell karma ( Sanskrit : naraka karma ).
Whereas, when someone ( such as myself, who is helping many Buddhist teachers of different lands and schools, and who is helping to build bridges of understanding and communication in ways that clearly help humanity ) works to bring people together in cooperation for mutual benefit, that is strongly positive karma, the opposite of naraka karma.
Be very clear on the fact that sometimes these issues are NOT THAT SUBTLE. Sometimes they are really straightforward.
People spend sooooo much tiiime getting confused about the basic teachings of Guru Sakyamuni, i.e. the Dhammapada. But you know what? I was reading Sakyamuni in seventh grade, and I got what he was saying, I got the basic ideas. In my twenty eight years associating with "Buddhists" one of the most amazing things is how so many people never got much of anything from the Buddha's teachings as recorded in the Dhammapada, which is pure, direct, simple and powerful.
I can teach the Dhammapada. I studied it, reflected on it, I have a set of Buddhist teaching credentials, and I live it. And you can see it in action. I propagate the Mahayana.
If you want to talk madhyamaka and Buddhist Philosophy, fine. I'm kinda busy now, with a lot of obligations on different levels. I' faith, I know not what your specific line of inquiry points to, either in philosophical or ethical or cognitive or social / prosocial terms.
Nevertheless, I am quite sure that the entire thread speaks for itself, bot here and on other Tribe fora.
With this I am beginning to develop a basis for a strong, humanitarian attack on a specific kind of revolutionary terrorism, the kind found in Islam. Islam is the primary historical enemy of Buddhism AND a primary cultural opponent to democracy and universal humanitarian ethics. The whole history of Islam from the very beginning demonstrates this.
No one has seen fit to remark on this in any tribe forum. What that means is that "so far, so good". The point is being established, and I have grounds for going further, in a principled, humanitarian ethical way. Peacefully, not through verbal abuse or cultural one-upmanship or emotion backed aggression. This is a big game.
This is a very very big game. It is global. I was REQUESTED by the moderator of Global Spiritual Community to join her tribe and say something about The Aquarian Conspiracy. I have done so. And I have at the same time taught key theory and strategy on Green Politics and Sustainable Environmental Democracy and Universal Humanitarian Ethics to people who say they care about such things.
I have established the relevance of not only universal ethics, but also Mahayana universal ethics in these fora. And that is real bodhisattva work, don't you see? I am a mahayana guru through much more than a piece of paper license.
I think I can take on any PHD Jesuit Father around in the US. I think they would want to flee my quiet, reasoned, systematic and historically well evidenced line of argument. The big target is revolutionary Islam and Total Islam. The goal is peace and freedom and democracy, rights for women and even for "non-believers" and heretics such as pagans generally and, ohh, I don't know, ALL 140 million Buddhists around the world, Chinese or Tibetan or Burmese or whatever. Does that seem worthwhile to you, Michael? It is a worthy goal for a Mahayanist, for someone who is sworn to uphold the mahayana as guru. Like me fr'instance.
The Pen Is mightier than the scimitar, the Islamic sword of universal jihad! Chimes of Freedom, as it were.
Sogyal Tulku Rinbochay said to us ( many years ago ) "When you can do what others cannot, THEN you are a bodhisattva." Clearly then, the real dependence is self-reliance, along with mutual help. This is what Guru Sakyamuni taught. It's really pretty straightforward, right?
Long live the Mahayana. We're in it to win it. Like our lives and sacred honor and the freedom of our societies and the future of humanity really depend on it. Now you know. If this somehow is not clear enough, try reading the Harry Potter series, or The Lord of The Rings. It's about giving a damn, basically, and never giving up. No defeat, baby, no surrender.
K T
"You know, one person CAN change the world. Nuff said."
Stan Lee, in Spiderman
From Wikipedia :
". . . .Spider-Man is one of the most experienced superheroes in the Marvel Universe. He has worked with virtually everyone in the superhero community at one time or another. Due to this experience, he has beaten foes with far greater powers and abilities. His fighting style is purely freestyle, which incorporates his speed, agility, strength, equilibrium and spider-sense. A very large part of his combat ability is improvisation and using his wits to out-think his opponents. One constant is his habit of using jokes, puns and insults. This serves a dual purpose, in that it not only causes his adversaries to become angry and distracted, it also helps Spider-Man deal with any fears or doubts that he might have during a battle."
-
-
-
