GUEST COLUMN
Acharya Prashant
We all know that the biggest threat facing this planet and mankind today is the catastrophic climate change. International conferences are held from time to time during which all kinds of measures are seriously discussed followed by a slew of recommendations. Experts come together and brainstorm to come up with solutions. But nobody ever dares call out the huge elephant in the room. The simplest solution to the problem of climate change lies in controlling the human population. You do not need to do anything to tackle climate change if you limit the number of human beings. Once you do this, the Earth’s health will be restored double quick. The biggest factor that contributes to climate change is man’s unbridled consumption. But nobody ever talks of this obvious step.
If forests are not there and rabbits and lions are not there, we too cannot be there. It is an existential threat and the threat is right on our head. It is happening faster than the scientific predictions: the forecasts are being overtaken.
We all want progress, but do we know that every bit of that which we call progress is carbon emitting? Every bit of that which we call the good life is carbon emitting. A fellow comes from a small town to live in a metro; his carbon footprint increases five times, but we call it progress, urbanisation. A fellow moves from a small house to a big house; his carbon footprint increases four times, but we say it signifies progress. A fellow gets a higher paying job and gets two more air conditioners. By doing so, he has done his share of damage to the Earth, but he will say this is progress.
Progress itself is the problem as long as there are so many people progressing. Unfortunately, that is what we want. All the consumption comes from this ecosystem, this planet. In our blind race for consumption, we destroy life for everybody. That is not sensible at all as far as our continuation on the planet is concerned. When we destroy the whole thing, are we aware of the implications it poses on us? It means man himself is not going to continue on this planet beyond 50 or 100 years at the most if the current crisis continues at the present pace.
Can alternative sustainable technologies provide the solution? Even if there is some great technology or even if man succeeds in colonising some other planet, still one thing would remain vicious about consumption. There is consumption that is needed for basic physical
sustenance and comfort. That is all right. But there is also consumption that happens for psychological reasons. It is the second type of consumption that I am always worried about and this worry would continue to be relevant and even all the more relevant as technology progresses. As technology progresses, you would probably be able to consume more and that would give you the license to totally forget the real cause of your troubles. The exteriors would probably then be alright; it would be green and the carbon levels would be manageable. All these things might appear externally right, but our internal world would continue to be in shambles—a shattered mass of glasses. Would we want that?
So, to those who have concerns beyond their well-being, I say, please look carefully at your consumption levels for the sake of all. And to those who rather think of their self-interest, I find it more profitable to say- well, your own inner wellness does not lie in consuming more; it rather lies in consuming just the right thing and renouncing all the rest. If something is indeed useful in our personal internal welfare, who can sensibly say we must not take it in. But if we are objective we will find they are doing us inner harm.
We are talking about the right kind of consumption because ultimately we will agree that all consumption is for our own welfare. And if consumption is for our own welfare, then consumption is not the end; but it is the welfare that is the end.
We are not saying that the economy is evil and it needs to be destroyed. As all economics is ultimately for the welfare of the human being we, therefore, need to measure our inner welfare as the most important thing in economics. This is sensible economics.
If we measure all as consumption, then why do we ban cigarettes or tax them so heavily? Why are they not, for example, allowed to be sold to minors? There has to be a reason. And the reason is again twofold: first, yes, when a pack of cigarettes is purchased, there is economic activity; money changes hands; transaction takes place and it contributes to GDP. On the other hand, the same person, if he continues to consume this stuff, would become totally incapable of any economic activity. A large number of them would just become liabilities upon the economic system because they are now sapped of their power to work, to meaningfully think. And secondly, there is the inner reason. Why consume something that does not contribute to your inner wellness? Even though they will have great sales and all that will contribute to GDP they are contributing at the same time to both economic decline and person’s internal decline. As welfare is what we need, we, therefore, do not need that kind of consumption; we need a different kind of consumption.
Spirituality is not anti-economics. Spirituality is pro-good economics. Spirituality says that if there is something that deserves to be consumed more, we should promote its consumption in whatever way possible. Subsidise it or advertise it and promote its consumption by all means. So, in that sense, spirituality is actually pro-consumption- consumption of the right thing.
(Acharya Prashant is a Vedanta teacher, author and the founder of Prashant Advait Foundation; views expressed are personal)
