Check out some similar questions!

Bruce Robinson · Sep 18, 2007, 04:41 AM

Buddhists teach respect towards all living things. Buddhists are expected to not kill or otherwise harm them.

This teaching is clear when dealing with the killing, butchering and eating of animals. My question is how far down the animal chain of complexity does this teaching go.

For example:
Is it OK to kill mosquitoes when one considers that they kill large number of humans via malaria.

Is it OK to use flea powder on one's pets when the option is allowing one's pets to suffer and perhaps die?

Is it OK to take antibiotics to cure a disease when the purpose of the antibiotics is to kill bacteria?

Regards
Bruce Robinson

hammieslove · Sep 25, 2007, 08:38 PM

Yes it is OK to kill killing animals because the fewer bugs that kill humans the better and the more things we can use tohelp heal the injured is better. Just don't kill so many bugs that there are only a few bugs to help the other animals in the food chain survive or we shall die by starvation.

Xrayman · Sep 30, 2007, 08:27 PM

It depends on your interpretation of killing. If a germ is going to kill you due to diarrhoea, would you let it? In this case it is kill or be killed. You are defending yourself against a lethal disease-self defence almost.

If you kill a mosquito for the hell of it-then I'd say you would have a karmic result coming to you. If you kill mosquitoes because the area is a malaria infested place-then again-it is self protection isn't it?

You could say that the karmic payment that a malarial infected mosquito has to bear is that it may be killed before it has the chance if infecting a human.

Cheers

Choux · Oct 3, 2007, 05:58 PM

It is interesting to note that in the present day, antibiotics are losing their strength against bacteria that are mutating after only about fifty plus years of being in existence! In addition, poisions have entered the environment and are extremely harmful to the waterways and soil to the point of pollution. Again, after only being in use for a relatively small amount of time in human history.

The result of these attempts to lengthen the lives of human beings by increasing food production and eliminating disease has cause a horrendous increase in human population over the last century... the number one cause of the ills of the planet such as climate crisis, air pollution, water pollution, pollution, pollution, pollution...

So, what kept the human population in check... checks and balances on a rapid increase in population are gone *for now*, and we face different, terrible problems.

Xrayman · Oct 4, 2007, 04:03 PM

Hi Choux,

I have a different interpretation of that argument to yours. The use of antibiotics was almost instantly recognised as a possible problem, not ALL bacteria died when subjected to an antibiotic-this was known as the first experiments were being done. All bacteria have the capacity to mutate and this is why some are resistant to the effects of some antibiotics.

Population explosion, may or may not be the cause of pollution-I don't know if that is a completely accurate interpretation of a complex issue. I think that the attempts to save human lives through better medicines and hygiene etc. etc are noble exploits.

Thanks for your reply though! I love the fredrich nietzche quote! Wish I would have come up with that one!