Datasets:

KaiserWhoLearns

/

conflictqa-u

like 0

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://blog.libro.fm/listen-up-why-audiobooks-count-as-reading/

Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading - Libro.fm Audiobooks

Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading As we strive to create an inclusive and engaging learning environment, it’s time we embrace the fact that reading goes beyond the written word. Contrary to popular belief, audiobooks are not simply a shortcut or a substitute for reading; they are a valuable tool that can enhance comprehension, foster a love for literature, and empower our students to finally be the readers they have always dreamed they could be. Guest Author: Pernille Ripp Pernille Ripp (she/her) is a former American public school teacher, adult literacy coach, and currently is expanding work in early childhood education in Denmark. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. “What should I read next?” he says, eagerly awaiting my answer. His question takes me by surprise. After all, there is no possible way he has finished the book I downloaded for him two days ago. This child, who at first fought me to even open the pages of a book, then comfortably slid into the art of fake reading. The same child who would rather read the same graphic novel every day than venture into new pages is standing before me eagerly asking for his next read. “You’re done already? What did you think?” I ask, trying to feel out if he actually read it. “It was so sad…at the end, when his dad came. I couldn’t believe it…” He keeps going, telling me parts of the story that make me nod in recollection, and it dawns on me: he did read it. And even more, he loved it. He is proud. And he is ready for another book. “When did you find the time to read it?” I ask, still surprised. “Last night…It got interesting so I listened to it all night. Three hours, I think.” He says, “So what do I read next?” This child who has not read a chapter book all year. Who has abandoned book upon book, casting aside any favorites that we could think of. This child, whose disengagement has made us worry late at night, whose ability to tell you exactly what you want to hear has befuddled us all. He now stands before me, beaming, waiting for the next book. He has become a child that reads. And he is not alone. Many students who have never liked reading are begging for the next book, begging for more time to listen. Yes, listen. These students are devouring one audiobook after another. Comprehending the words without having to struggle through the decoding. Accessing stories that they have heard their friends talk about. They no longer grab easier books while longing for something with more substance and maturity. These children are finally feeling like readers with the help of audiobooks. Some may say that audiobooks do not count as reading; I certainly used to balk at them counting toward any reading goal. But a few years back, my students changed me. Sure, there are cognitive differences in the processes that happen when we read with our eyes versus our ears; however, the skills that we are able to utilize through reading an audiobook are monumental in building further reading success. And research has shown that the cognitive processes are surprisingly similar. Listening to audiobooks can provide many of the same cognitive benefits as reading print books, including improved vocabulary, comprehension, and critical thinking skills. (National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled) So what do audiobooks (and investing in audiobooks) do for our students? Provide equity in the reading experience. Students who read significantly below their grade level are able to access the same texts as their peers. Now, when they browse for books they can select any they are interested in and we can get copies on audio. Support critical thinking skills. Students can develop critical thinking skills without having to spend enormous brain power on decoding. And research agrees as well; children who listened to audiobooks showed significant improvements in reading comprehension and fluency, according to Stanford University. We don’t have to simplify our text choices when students can receive proper support through audiobooks. Reignite a passion for reading. Often students who are developing readers start to hate reading. And I get it; when you are constantly in struggle mode, it can be so tiring. Having access via an audiobook lets students finally enjoy a story. They can be in the zone because their brain is not occupied with the work of having to decode every single word, creating a deep immersion into the reading experience. Welcome children with disabilities. Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for improving reading comprehension and retention in individuals with ADHD or other attention disorders according to the Journal of Adolescent Psychology. Children who prefer to move rather than remain static can pace, doodle, or otherwise release energy while they listen. So often, my kids who self-confessed to hating reading tell me that what they really hate is sitting still. So providing them with a way to listen while moving, has enormous benefits. And that just speaks to the benefit of one learning difference; now consider the many ways audiobooks can support children with a variety of learning needs. Provide new strategies for teaching reading. I can now pull out segments of text to use with a student knowing that they have the proper background knowledge, which is a key component when we build understanding. I do not have to reference the entire text but instead can have them focus on the skill at hand. This, therefore, allows me to support their comprehension growth more efficiently. Give us a gateway into reading with their eyes. Oftentimes, my developing readers harbor enormous hesitancy when it comes to veering out of their known text. They are quick to dismiss, abandon, and feign disinterest, all in the interest of saving face and avoiding yet another reading disappointment. However, many students finding success within the audiobook world are building their courage, their stamina, and their desire to pick up print texts. I could list more reasons, such as being exposed to amazing fluency, students feeling like they have relevant thoughts when it comes to discussion, building overall reading self-esteem, planting high-interest books in the hands of students, and even changing the reading dynamics within a classroom. In the end, I wonder whether it really matters if having students read audiobooks is cognitively not precisely the same as when they read with their eyes. If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. You can find her across social media platforms easily.

If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education.

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/audiobooks-count-as-reading-37103487

Audiobooks Count as Reading — Why to Listen to an Audiobook ...

Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread. “The act of digesting a story is different [with audiobooks], but the skills you use are the same,” Smith says. “You still need to form sentences in your head and create a picture of the story; it’s [just] coming to you from a different medium.” Catherine Wilde is a life coach, author of the book “Reclaim Your Inner Sparkle,” and founder of SoulCareMom. As a busy working mother who homeschools her children, she doesn’t always have time for the “luxury” of reading physical books, so she relies on audiobooks, particularly nonfiction ones that will continue to develop her abilities. “The experience is different, admittedly,” says Wilde. “But when absorbing nonfiction in particular, if the audiobook in question is narrated by the author, the experience is magical and even ethereal.” I agree. While I do listen to a lot of fiction, I also like books about entrepreneurship and personal growth. It’s energizing to hear the words come straight from the author’s mouths. (Pro tip: I bump up the reading speed a bit, and the authors sound urgent and even more empowering!) I’m also on a celebrity memoir kick of late, and when given the option to read Pete Townshend’s book detailing his years with The Who or hear him read it in his melodic British accent, which do you think I’m going to choose? Literacy and Accessibility Not everyone has the ability to read physical books, which is another reason I’m in love with audiobooks. “Listening to audiobooks can be a richer experience, but it also engages different senses, and that makes it great for accessibility,” says Tanja Hester, award-winning author of “Work Optional: Retire Early the Non-Penny-Pinching Way” and creator of the Our Next Life blog. “Though I love reading books, I often struggle to sit down and read, something I learned is connected to my ADHD,” Hester says. “But I can easily get immersed in audiobooks, and I now read many more books this way.” She also notes that she has friends who have dyslexia and also find audiobooks to be more accessible. “Anyone who gets snobby about audiobooks not being ‘real books’ is completely ignoring the vast majority of human and literary history, in which most people ‘read’ by having stories or lyric poems told or recited to them,” Hester says. “It’s a fairly recent phenomenon for most of the population to be able to read!” Peter Cox, author, literary agent, and founder of Litopia (the world’s oldest online community for writers) agrees. “I’m constantly telling writers not to become entirely fixated by the written word,” he says. “The oral tradition predates writing, obviously. Audiobooks are simply a continuation of that.” Don’t Knock it Until You Try It Still put off by the word “read” when it comes to audiobooks? Then let me swap in the word “consume” instead. I happily consume books, whether they are print, digital, or audio. Although they are calorie-free, books in every form are part of my daily diet. If you haven’t tried one of the audiobook platforms out there, allow me to recommend my favorite, LibroFM. When you sign up for an account, you can choose an independent bookstore to support with each purchase. (I proudly support Books Are Magic in Brooklyn, NY). Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But whether I turn to the last page of a book or listen to the last seconds of its audio version, it is ready to be checked off my to-be-read list. “Even with higher literacy rates now, gatekeeping what counts as reading only does harm,” Hester says. “Audiobooks are great, and so are graphic novels and anything else that give people multiple ways to engage with written work.”

Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread.

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://www.readbrightly.com/when-to-read-kids-audiobooks/

Not Just for Car Rides: When to 'Read' Kids' Audiobooks at Home ...

Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!) and makes the experience less awful, even if they have to go back to the physical book to do the annotations. To Tackle Harder Books When an assigned book or even a book a child wants to read on their own is too challenging to comprehend, listen to it instead. This works because a child’s listening comprehension is almost always more advanced than their visual reading comprehension. I’d also suggest this as an option for books written in old-fashioned language or dialect. Using Kids’ Audiobooks in the Classroom I’m in awe of the teachers and librarians who creatively work within limited budgets to give kids access to audiobooks. They’ll use Overdrive, Audible, Epic, or Tales 2 Go to provide the books. Then kids will listen on computers, phones, iPods, or iPads. Here are three ideas for when to use audiobooks in the classroom: To Increase the Number of Books Read In the classroom, some teachers alternate between reading by sight and reading by ear. This benefits all kids. Just like any reading of books, it builds vocabulary, improves writing skills, develops concentration, increases an understanding of self and the world, grows imaginations, and improves school achievement. For children who don’t speak English as their first language, aren’t enthusiastic readers, or have slower processing speeds, listening to books can dramatically increase their time spent in books. Take my oldest daughter, who has a slow processing speed. For her, reading books is cumbersome — it takes forever. However, reading by ear allows her to read more. (Interestingly enough, she’ll often read the physical book after she’s listened to it.) To Model Fluency Just like reading aloud to kids models oral reading fluency, listening to audiobooks does it, too. It’s particularly delightful when the author reads their books as Mary Pope Osborne does for her Magic Tree House series. As kids listen, they’ll hear the narrator’s pauses, loud and soft places, and different voices for dialogue. Ask kids to evaluate the narrator’s inflection. Do they like the narrator’s style or do they find it unappealing? Why? This analysis adds another layer of thinking skills to the listening experience. Then have kids practice their own oral fluency by making their own audiobook. (If they’re reading a picture book, do a video recording so they can show the illustrations.) As a Gateway to Different Books and Genres When readers prefer a specific genre or format, audiobooks can introduce them to other types of stories. I had a fifth grade student who only read nonfiction (mostly the encyclopedia!) but when she and some classmates listened to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, it opened her eyes to the possibilities of chapter books. (Thank you, audiobooks!) The same goes for kids who are addicted to fantasy but haven’t tried historical fiction or sci-fi. In many instances, audiobooks can spark an interest in reading new genres. Any audiobook is a great place to start, but you can find our favorite audiobook recommendations here.

Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!)

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html

Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?

Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson | Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: [email protected]. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.

Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson | Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.

no

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://bookshelffantasies.com/2015/12/19/the-audiobook-debate-what-counts-as-reading/

The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? | Bookshelf ...

The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? Earlier this week, a close friend (and one of my favorite book people – a true BBF) was moaning to me about her progress toward her Goodreads goal. Only two weeks left in December, and she’s still short 12 books! She’s planning to take a bunch of smaller books and graphic novels with her on her family holiday trip, so it’s likely she’ll make her total by the end of the year. I’ve already passed my goal (okay, I did read a lot of graphic novels this year!), and as I was talking to my friend about some of the books that pushed me over the top, numbers-wise, I mentioned Uprooted by Naomi Novik, one of my favorite audiobooks of the year. The conversation took a sudden and unexpected turn: BBF: You count audiobooks? Me: Yes. (Of course! I added in my head.) BBF: But that’s not reading! Me: Oh yes it is! BBF: Nuh-uh! Me: Yuh-huh! We didn’t stick out our tongues at each other… but in terms of childish behavior, we came close! So what is reading? What “counts”? The primary definition of the verb “read”, according to Dictionary.com, is: to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music. Okay, that one focuses on the written/printed word. Here’s definition #2: to utter aloud or render in speech (something written, printed, etc.): reading a story to his children; The actor read his lines in a booming voice. Hmm. That’s the act of reading aloud. When my son was younger, I read to him all the time, even up to age 12, when we read together such books as Eragon and The Hobbit. I had never read Eragon before, and as I read it to my son, I was reading it for myself as well. But back to the original question: Is listening to a book the same as reading a book? Do your eyes have to be involved in order to have read something? What about someone who’s vision-impaired? Using a Braille book seems to obviously be reading… but what if they don’t know Braille? What if they can only enjoy books that they listen to? Does that count as reading? I’ve become a big fan of audiobooks in the past few years, so my take on the issue is pretty clear-cut. For me, whether I’ve used my eyes or my ears, my brain is certainly involved, and either way, I’m absorbing a story, ideas, plotlines, themes, and more. I suppose I’d be in favor of a more expansive definition of reading, along the lines of: Using one’s senses to take in the content of a book. (Okay, let’s agree to exclude taste and smell from the above! I love the smell of a bookstore, but sniffing books definitely isn’t reading! And I don’t recommend eating them either.) Of course, as I probably should have said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks when it comes to Goodreads stats. I’ve seen people argue about all sorts of things “counting” as real books, such as novellas, graphic novels, and re-reads. I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it. The little hurdles made me read more. Audiobooks definitely count as reading! You are absorbing a story either way, & that’s the truly important part. Personally, I tend to read over listen. It just works better with my life. But there are certain books that I feel I understand better through listening. I listened to Pride and Prejudice, & I think hearing the sentences made the grammar/wording much less confusing. I am also a huge fan of books turned into audio-dramas. Do you have any opinions on those? I listened to all of the Jane Austen books via audio this year, and I have to agree with your comments about P&P. Especially with Emma — I think I appreciated it so much more as an audiobook than when I read it in print. Something about the skill of the narrator, I think — I’d just never realized how totally laugh-out-loud funny the book is! I haven’t actually listened to any audio-dramas yet, although I do have a couple in my queue. Are there any in particular that you recommend? I have a lot from Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. A few of my favorites are: The Chronicles of Narnia series, Les Miserables, Little Women, and Oliver Twist. I don’t know of any audio drama companies that produce ADs for more recently pubished works. Most of these were gifts from my Grandfather though, so maybe I’ll ask if he has any recommendations for other AD producers. Love audiobooks and definitely count them as stories ‘read’. I have both audio and paper books going at all times but when the eyes are tired, driving in the car or doing chores and errands, audiobooks are wonderful. I even have a headband earbud that I use when I go to bed. If I fall asleep, just hit rewind in the a.m. I agree! To me, audiobooks definitely count as reading. I mean, you are using your ears instead of eyes but you still absorb the story. Except for your own voice reading inside your head, you have someone else’s (that sounded really creepy suddenly). I have never understood why some people don’t count it as reading. I don’t really get it either — although for my friend who disagreed with me on this, she’s never actually listened to a whole audiobook, even though she’s a totally avid reader of print books. Maybe those who don’t “count” them just haven’t given them a shot? I think that’s definitely possible. I do think that a lot of people underestimate audiobooks? Before I started listening to them, I never realized just how long it takes. How much of an undertaking it really is, if you know what I mean Audiobooks certainly count for me! If I have listened to it, it doesn’t make sense for me to then go read it in the regular fashion for it to “count”.and if it doesn’t count, I suppose visually impaired people who listen to audiobooks haven’t read a thing. I think that the people who quibble over things like including audiobooks on Goodreads must not have a lot of fun reading to begin with. Cheers 🙂 I think listening to audiobooks counts as “reading’ since you are experiencing the story, absorbing the information, and otherwise engaging with the text. For some reason we seem focused on experiencing things visually or textually, but I think other cultures that transmitted stories orally or read to each other aloud more (we seem to do this mostly for children now, like listening to a story is something adults don’t do) would find our print-based culture strange. Anyway, the Goodreads challenge is for fun. The only reason I could think of for an audiobook not to “count” is if you were trying to challenge a reader to become more engaged with print, with the assumption that audiobooks won’t be available for every text so you want to help him/her to become more comfortable reading plain text. There also seems to be an assumption here that listening to a book is easier than reading it, which is intriguing. I know that audiobooks are used to encourage reluctant readers or help readers who might not be reading at grade level. But…I actually find it easier to absorb information and follow a story if I am reading it rather than listening to it. It’s easier for me to concentrate solely on the text and easier to reread, skim, take notes, etc. I control the experience more if I’m reading the text. So I think we can’t really assume that listening is taking the easy way out. Listening is merely a different way of experiencing a text; it’s not necessarily a better or a worse way. Hmm, good point about oral traditions, and how storytelling seems so pigeon-holed for children these days. I agree, too, about listening being a different way of experiencing a text, not necessarily an easier way. I do have a hard time focusing sometimes when I’m listening, and I’ll end up replaying sections if they were complicated or if my mind wandered. (I’ve learned by now to pause the story if I’m driving and need to find parking — my brain apparently can’t handle searching for a space and concentrating on a story at the same time.) I don’t understand why people don’t count them. It’s not like you watched the movie and then counted it or you read spark notes and counted it. You’re getting the full written word and experiencing the story. It’s definitely reading. I can’t listen to them because I tune out so it isn’t even like I’m saying they count because I like them. I actually don’t like audiobooks at all. I do wish that listeners would read some of the time because so much can be gained by reading new words and seeing it, but listening counts as reading in my opinion. Most people I know who listen to audiobooks also read print books — just different media for different times/situations. As an audiobook fan, it really shocked me to hear that some people don’t consider them reading — I certainly do! I’m not an audiobook listener, so I can’t really speak on the subject with such confidence. My issue with audiobooks is that I can’t focus on listening someone read to me–I tend to tune them out (a bad childhood habit?) and then once I focus back in on the words, I forget what had happened earlier. So while I might not count audiobooks for myself, if others find they can listen and concentrate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count. Just my two cents! Thanks for sharing! Funny, as a kid, I couldn’t listen to people reading without falling asleep… but I feel like I’ve gotten better at focusing on audiobooks now that I’ve been doing it for a few years. 🙂 There is absolutely no question in my mind, audiobooks = reading! I’m a librarian. When we run the Summer Reading Program for kids in the summer, if a child listened to an audiobook, it’s reading. Graphic novels count as well. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on how short or long a book is. Or even on numbers at all. A book can be amazing and only be 30 pages (picture books!) and it can be crap an be 600 pages. Reading about story, and using your brain to understand the story, whether it’s read to you or you read it on your own. Whether there are pictures or not. Oh, for the love… YES IT COUNTS! I agree that what other people thing “counts” is really irrelevant, but these debates still come up. Debating is not a bad thing, I just have a really hard time understanding the *other* side when it comes to this particular debate. As an avid reader who sometimes doesn’t have the time to read print books, audiobooks are such a great way to read (yes, read!) more stories during times I can necessarily sit still. I count everything for my yearly GR challenge, even pictures books and I really don’t care if anyone has an issue with that. My goal was waaaaaay higher this year (and will be next year) because those are a type of book I am reading at this stage in my life. So my goals reflect the types of books I plan to be reading — I sure as heck wouldn’t set a 250 or 300 book goal if I were only reading novels. Sorry if this got a little negative — we should all *count* our books however we want and that is that! Very true — it’s so individual! I was just so surprised to learn that this is even an issue. I tend not to do many challenges, but I do like the Goodreads annual challenge, mostly because it’s just for my own satisfaction. Like you, my goal reflects what I expect to read, so I always push the number higher to allow for graphic novels, kids’ books, etc. When I was listening to an audiobook earlier this year, someone said that same thing to me. But they are so wrong: of course it counts as reading!!! The fact that you aren’t looking at the page doesn’t mean anything. Thursday Quotables Outlander Book Club A place to discuss the wonderful works of Diana Gabaldon, plus so much more! All are welcome. By the Numbers: 693,854 views Disclaimer: I occasionally receive review copies of books from publishers or via NetGalley. For all reviews, the source of the book I’m reviewing is identified in the details section at the start of the review. All reviews reflect my honest opinions, regardless of source. Affiliate Disclaimer: Posts on Bookshelf Fantasies may contain links to affiliate websites. We receive a commission on purchases you make on these websites through these links.

I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it.

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/

You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...

You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them *and* those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er

You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.

no

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://www.pagesandleaves.com/post/unpopular-opinion-audiobooks

Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading!

Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings. You will want to make sure your plant isn’t in a pot that is too big or doesn’t have the proper drainage. Nursery pots are the best and they’re free (if you never throw them away when you repot a plant). Don’t leave the cuttings in water for too long. I have found the roots get a little bit too soft. It depends on the plant but it can get nice roots (about 1-3 inches)with it being in water for about 2-3 weeks. Make sure the plant and the water is getting proper lightning. You will still want the leaves of the plant to stay healthy. SOIL MIX IS VERY IMPORTANT (all caps to emphasize just how important). My soil mix includes 1 part Miracle Gro potting mix, 1 part Miracle Gro succulent potting mix, and a cup of perlite. Super basic but super successful. After you transfer your cutting into soil, you will want to make sure the soil stays moist but also don’t drown it. We don’t want those new roots to go into shock. Biggest tip of all: PRAY and have back up cuttings in water ready to go, JUST in case it doesn’t work out. Reason 3: Some books sound better narrated. I love a physical book but there have been SOOOO many audiobooks, with the help of some bomb narrators, that have truly transformed my reading experience. For the record, this blog STANS Bahni Turpin and Elizabeth Acevedo. I really got into audiobooks last year and at one point I was looking for books narrated specifically by these women. Voice acting is a skill. These narrators can make you feel and evoke the emotion the author intended for their readers. Some narrators are a hit or miss though but it’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I don’t like their voice, I’ll revert back to the trusty voice in my head and read the physical or e-book copy. Reason 4: If I still haven’t convinced you to try out audiobooks, could I also add: they can be free! I listen to audiobooks by checking them out through my local library via the Libby app. I'm able to take them wherever I go. They are downloaded directly to my phone so if for some reason I lose internet connection, the reading continues. If you need some recommendations, here are some of my favorites of all time: I challenge you to listen to at least 10 minutes of one of these books and if you aren’t hooked, I’ll cut an aglet off my least favorite hoodie! But at the end of the day, books are to be consumed in whatever way YOU see fit. Don’t let anyone shame what you read and how you choose to read it. Read on, folks! Do you enjoy audiobooks? If so, what are your faves? If not, how do you prefer to read? Do you have any plant propagation tips?

Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings.

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://allonsythornraxxbooks.com/2019/02/08/book-vices-audiobooks/

BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY ...

BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES) Hey guys, welcome back to my blog! Today I’m coming at you with a new Book Vices post, and today I’m talking about why I love audiobooks, and why some people don’t! I’ve tried to be completely fair for each side, so I’ve included arguments from each side, against and for audiobooks. Most of these arguments are pretty good, needing a bank card, characters having the same voice, money, getting distracted. They’re all problems I have to. I get distracted when I listen to audiobooks too, for example, I was trying to listen to The Hobbit on audio this morning and was struggling with it. But, I think that’s mostly down to the author’s writing and I think I would have a similar issue if I was reading physically. For me, getting distracted usually has more to do with me or the writing than the actual audiobook, itself. As for money, I agree. Audiobooks can be pretty expensive. If you buy them physically on a CD they’re usually ($AUS) $50-100 per book [link]. So, you really would be racking up a debt that way. But, I buy my audiobooks via Audible which often has sales and ebook/audio deals. If I don’t buy the audiobook, however, I get the audiobook from my library for free. As for the other arguments like not being able to skip ahead or go back, not liking the narrator, the book being too long/slow & being able to read faster than listening. I use Libby & Audible and with those apps you can change the speed (I usually prefer 1.75x. 2.00x and 2.15x), you can set a sleep timer in case you think you might get tired, you can skip backwards and forwards, and you can bookmark whatever you’re reading. In terms of not liking the narrator though, I get that and narrators will often deter me from reading a book – if I don’t like the narrator it can ruin the whole experience but, some books, particularly with popular authors & classics, there are multiple versions to listen to so you can choose a different narrator. MY ARGUMENT FOR AUDIOBOOKS You can adjust the speed at which you listen to your book Most library systems (physical libraries, Libby, Overdrive) have audiobooks available for free Handy for long distance travel (work, holiday, school etc) Won’t weigh down your bag Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and read for a few hours every day, so audiobooks are a good way to still get some reading in [link] It’s really ableist to say that audio isn’t a way to read. You can still be a reader if you can’t see the words. Helpful for pronunciation if you’re trying to learn a new language – you can always follow along with the physical book Often authors will narrate their own book (popular with memoirs) so you can hear the book exactly how they meant for it to be told. Often audiobooks for classics are available in the public domain (YouTube has a bunch) Some people learn better aurally than visually It’s environmentally friendly – no paper or ink Audiobooks are great for the people who don’t like reading in general but have to read a book whether that be for school or because they’re being dragged into a book club. I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read. So yes, I think audiobooks do count as reading even though I don’t read audiobooks myself. I can completely understand that and I do struggle with getting distracted with some audiobooks, I think it’s usually down to the writing or narrator when I can’t concentrate on the audiobook. I’m jealous of #2, I can never stick to a podcast, I always forget about them and stop listening! Reading audiobooks is amazing if it’s your only option and you have the means to acquire them, but reading in any form is amazing in itself! I usually listen to podcasts when I get changed in the morning and plan in my bullet journal. But there are too many amazing podcasts out there and I could never listen to all of them and catch up with the latest episodes. 😂 Yeah, the not really reading it thing is stupid. I wrote a blog post about it, but I agree that the point shouldn’t be “are you eyes looking at words?” unless we’re talking about school and actually trying to get a student to develop reading skills. Otherwise, you heard and comprehended and thought about the text. It’s reading. But I don’t like audiobooks because I can’t focus, they’re slow, and half the narrators annoy me. :p Exactly, as long as you’re taking and understanding the content, it should still count as reading. I mean, we’ll never win though because there are people who don’t count using an e-reader as reading. I can totally understand that. I usually recommend trying to listen to your favourite book on audio if you can’t concentrate but, if you don’t like audiobooks you don’t like audiobooks. Also, yes, a bad narrator can RUIN a good book. I don’t use audiobooks only because I don’t think they’d work for me and I have no need for them. I’m homebound, the only place I ever go is the Dr’s (and I don’t drive so I can read an ebook or physical book), and I have trouble focusing on stuff like that (which is a me thing, not the book). However they do very much count as reading and i’m so happy for all the people they work for! Maybe i’ll try them one day and find out i’m wrong about them not working for me. It’s definitely ableist to say audiobooks don’t count. Audiobooks, ebooks, physical books, it all counts as reading. A story is making a way into your noggin in any form. 🙂 I can completely understand that! I have 2 hr trips to and from school so I find audiobooks really helpful because I don’t have to take the physical book with me, but if I was at home more throughout the book I would probably listen to fewer audiobooks too. If you ever try an audiobook out I recommend listening to an excerpt first to see if you like the narrator and then listening to a book you know really well. When I first tried them I listened to the Harry Potter series because I was already familiar with the plot & characters so if I missed a bit it didn’t matter as much. I agree everything should count as reading and it makes no sense to say otherwise! Thank you for linking to me post 😊 As you know, personally I can’t concentrate on Audiobooks because I am easily distracted 🙈 But it doesn’t mean that listening to audiobooks is not reading. It off course is. As far as you are able to grab a story and words, you are reading. I hate people who judge others because of their reading medium. I wanted to include your post to try and give a balance to each argument because audiobooks aren’t for everyone and I respect that. I think reading is reading and ebooks and audiobooks should always count. I agree, judging people because of how they read is a horrible thing to do! I definitely think listening to an audiobook counts as reading! I’ve only ever listened to a few audiobooks because I have the unfortunate habit of spacing out suuuper quickly. Next thing I know I’m two chapters later and I can’t remember what’s been said 😅 I agree, I think if you’ve tried a variety of audiobooks or at least sampled a few chapters from different narrators then you have the right to an opinion. But if you’ve never tried an audiobook can you butt your nose out, please? Exactly, libraries have audiobooks for free and it’s amazing! (I had no idea that was considered fast! 🙈 I’ve actually been listening to a few on 2.15x lately so maybe I do have superpowers???) 😂😂😂

I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read.

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/audiobooks-better-than-reading.html

Opinion | When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It - The ...

When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It Over the past few years, I have been obsessed with the work of the Australian novelist Liane Moriarty. Yes, me and everyone else. Ever since her 2014 blockbuster, “Big Little Lies,” Moriarty has become one of the publishing industry’s most dependable hitmakers. Although her prose is unflashy and her subject matter seemingly pedestrian — Moriarty writes tightly plotted domestic dramas about middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites — her observations are so precise, her characters’ psychology so well realized that I often find her stories burrowing deep into my brain and taking up long, noisy residence there. It’s no wonder Hollywood has been snapping up her books as quickly as she can write them. “Big Little Lies” and her 2018 hit, “Nine Perfect Strangers,” have been turned into limited series for TV. Moriarty’s enthralling new novel, “Apples Never Fall,” which debuted last month at the top of the Times best-seller list, may also be heading to a streaming service near you. But now a confession: I heap all this praise on Moriarty having technically never read a word she’s written. Instead, I have only listened. The English audiobook versions of her novels are read by Caroline Lee, a narrator whose crystalline Australian cadences add to Moriarty’s stories what salt adds to a stew — necessary depth and dimension. Lee’s voice is an irresistible, visceral joy; like the best audiobook narrators, her delivery is endlessly malleable, shifting nimbly across accent, register and tone to create a sense that one is inside the story rather than peering in from the outside. I binged “Apples Never Fall” in a day and a half, and when I was done, I began to wonder who deserved the greater share of praise — the author or the narrator. It’s true that Moriarty’s books are difficult to put down, but would I have been as deeply hooked if they weren’t cooed by a voice that could make the Federal Register sound compelling? But if Lee’s narration really does so completely elevate Moriarty’s text, what about the people who had read the book rather than listened to Lee read it? Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone. In fact, it is the rare memoir that doesn’t work better as audio than as text. A fine recent example is “Greenlights,” by the actor Matthew McConaughey. As text, his story is discursive and sometimes indulgent, but as audio, in his strange and irresistible staccato speaking style, it exemplifies exactly the kind of weirdness that makes him so intriguing as an actor and celebrity. As I listened to “Greenlights,” I realized how much extratextual theater was going on; there’s a way in which McConaughey, through his delivery, conveys emotion that is almost entirely absent from his text. Recently I have been telling everyone I know to listen to “The Last Black Unicorn,” the comedian Tiffany Haddish’s account of her rough childhood in the foster system and the many hardships she endured on the way to making it big in show business. Her narrative is compelling enough, but she is one of the best stand-up comedians working today, so it’s hardly a surprise that the tragedy and the hilarity of her story are punched up by her delivery in the audiobook. There is a riotous extended section in the memoir about her elaborate revenge plot on a boyfriend who’d cheated on her; I pity anyone who only read Haddish’s text, because the way she explains the various parts of her plan had me laughing to tears. As spoken-word audio has taken off, the publishing industry and Amazon, whose Audible subsidiary is the audiobook business’s dominant force, have invested heavily in the medium. Now audiobooks often benefit from high-end production and big-name voice talent, and there are innovations in digital audio — like spatially rendered sound, which gives listeners a sense of being surrounded by audio — that may turn audiobooks into something like radio dramas. Still, as popular as audiobooks have become, I suspect there will remain some consternation about their rise, especially from book lovers who worry that audio is somehow eclipsing the ancient sanctity of text and print. But that is a myopic view. Telling stories, after all, is an even older form of human entertainment than reading and writing stories. Banish any guilt you might harbor about listening instead of reading. Audiobooks are not to be feared; they do not portend the death of literature on the altar of modern convenience. Their popularity is a sign, rather, of the endurance of stories and of storytelling. Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call. Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @fmanjoo•Facebook A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone.

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://www.tlbranson.com/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading/

Do audiobooks count as reading? | YA Fantasy Blog

Now before you flood my comments with arguments let’s break this discussion down. The Literal Meaning of the Question I’m going to entertain the argumentative folks out there for a minute. You know the type. Those folks who know what you really mean, but decide to play Devil’s advocate for the fun of it. Yeah, I’m talking to you. Let’s dissect the question again, thinking about it literally. “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Two words in that question are important here. The first is the word “audio” and the second is the word “read.” Can you read audio? Well…no. No you cannot. You can read the subtitles of your favorite music video, but that still implies a medium that is visual. Strictly speaking, audio cannot be read. Are you happy now? Do you feel vindicated in some way that your hyper analytical and argumentative response has somehow been validated? Ah, but you’ve forgot one very important thing: The presence of a third word in that question that is crucial to our interpretation. That’s the word “book.” When finishing an audiobook you are finishing a book. Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes. Listening to an audiobook and reading the physical book are different. Not just in medium, but in experience. When you read a book, you create the voices of the characters, you interpret inflection, and you control the pace. But when you listen to the audiobook, you relinquish all of those things and are subjected to the interpretation of the narrator. No, not the interpretation of the author, but the narrator. This provides a wholly different interaction with the same book. I’ve done a lot of back and forth reading. What I mean by this is that I’ll listen to the audiobook during my commute to work in the car, but I’ll switch to the ebook on my lunch break or during my nightly reading time at home. I’ve found that when I read a book, I tend to skip sections in an effort to keep the story flowing, only to find that I’ve skipped too much and have to read back a paragraph or two to see what I missed. But an audiobook forces me to listen to every single word. It might be slower, but it restricts my tendency to skip. But I also find that with audiobooks, I can’t see the spelling of names or places and as a result it becomes harder for me to remember names or to spatially associate them. So, yes, the experiences are different. Do audiobooks count as reading? If you’re keeping score, out of the three aspects of the question: “Do audiobooks count as reading?” there are two points for “No” and only one point for “Yes.” Why then did I start off by saying the answer to the question is yes? Well because user intent trumps everything. The asker does not care about experiences or grammar. They care about whether it counts. Yes, it counts. You finished the story. Whether that story was read or listened to makes no difference. You went from beginning to end. You silently (or not for those of you that randomly whoop out loud at their books) participated as the protagonist struggled, failed, purposed to overcome, grew, and then victoriously conquered the antagonist. There is no need to reread the book (unless you’re into that sort of thing. I know many of you are.).

Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

yes_statement

"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".

https://theorangutanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2023/04/16/stop-the-audiobook-hate/

Stop the Audiobook Hate – the orang-utan librarian

I REALLY disliked this take. Everything about it stinks of snobbery- and I just can’t stand it. Because I have seen this argument *far too often* at this point and I’m not having it. So be prepared for an incoming RANT. Because where does this person get off? Even before I listened to audiobooks, I considered it reading. Simply put, audiobooks are no different to books in terms of the language, ideas and story- the only difference is how we consume the words. It does not matter if the words are visual or auditory- they are the same!! Now, according to this individual, the reason they shouldn’t count as reading is that audiobooks are apparently far easier to read. To which I’d respond, A) why’d you care? Reading doesn’t have to be a chore and B) who says so? A quick google search will tell you that in the general population 65% of learners are visual and only 30% are auditory. I can attest to my own experience that I struggled to get into audiobooks for a long time because I found it required more concentration, not less. Of course, this matters only in so much as you care about other people’s reading stats (which I’ve previously established is a weird thing to do). In fairness to this poster, there is the caveat that this doesn’t apply to people with vision problems (and presumably they will make allowances for others with differing needs). Not only does this come across as patronising, like we all need this person’s permission to engage in our hobbies as we choose, but it doesn’t actually change this individual’s perspective. Listening to audiobooks either counts as reading or it doesn’t (spoiler alert, it does). It’s still “not reading” according to them- yet the author of the post feels slightly bad about holding this standard when it comes to people with disabilities (basically because they realise it’s wrong). In truth, I find this take especially bizarre since oral storytelling is the oldest form of literature. From fairy tales to the Iliad, it’s where the tradition of stories began. There is an almost forgotten artistry in sharing our world in this way- a textured ability to build up a narrative and communicate more than we can simply see. Hearing stories also happens to be how most of us begin to engage with literature. We hear stories before we have the ability to read in visual form. We form some of our greatest reading memories from this. That connection to the childhood pleasure of storytelling is part of why I love audiobooks so much- and why I will defend them and recommend them to everyone. Arguing audiobooks shouldn’t be considered reading reeks of a desire to put other readers down and is flat out wrong. You don’t have to like audiobooks. And you don’t have to engage with them. But you ought to respect them as books. You cannot decide otherwise just because you have a misguided desire to feel superior. Snobbery has no place here. Alright- what do you think? Are you a fan of audiobooks? Do you think they count as reading? Let me know in the comments! Post navigation 53 thoughts on “Stop the Audiobook Hate” I love AITA too and that’s a very pretentious take by the person. People like reading in different ways and have their own preferences. Just because you don’t do something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?” Like it doesn’t affect another person how someone consumes a media? Why is this even a topic that comes up so often?! Let people live, man. And yes, it is so weird to obsess about other people’s reading stats! We always say to not compare the number of books you read to another’s, so let’s not judge another person’s reading stats either. I don’t get it! Also, I hadn’t even thought about how we all start off just listening to stories. It’s the original way we consume books. That is an excellent point! The funny thing is that I don’t see anyone saying graphic novels or comics don’t count as reading. Like audiobooks they are a different way of consuming a story. There are graphic novels that don’t have any words in them. Do those count as reading? That an absolute yes. As someone who been having vision problems for about a year now, gee I didn’t know I needed solely one person permission to count audiobooks as reading. *sarcasm*. 100% agree with this post. I seen so many other bloggers talk about this and add an -ist suffix at the end of able as a reason for people not liking audiobooks. Like that makes them smart and rational. It does not. Sadly I have seen that I just don’t understand why, but people like to gatekeep other people’s reading. I really relate- one of the main reasons I’ve shifted my own habits is to do with my own vision problems. I simply would not be able to read as much if I was relying on physical or ebooks… And do not need this person’s permission to rest my eyes 😅 I continue to be baffled by this whole thing, as well. If people want to be technical and use the term “listening” instead of “reading,” whatever, I guess. I can be pedantic, too, so I can excuse that in others! But when they get into the “it’s not real reading,” thing, I agree it makes no sense and just seems weirdly like they want to declare themselves “better at reading books” than other people. We’re not in second grade and no one is assessing our reading level and there are no prizes, so why? When I ask someone if they’ve read a book, I am generally trying to have a conversation with them about that book. I want to talk about things like whether they liked the main character or what they thought about the prose or the themes or what they think will happen next. And it is possible to have that conversation whether they “listened to the audiobook” or “read the physical book,” so why would I care which one they did??? Yes same. Haha I hear you- I can be pedantic too, which is what I initially thought they’d say, but then they start saying it shouldn’t be counted in people’s stats, and just…. Why would you care about that? And why do you need to feel superior about how you read? Haha yes!! Yes absolutely!! A lot of the time it’s completely irrelevant (it only becomes relevant when you’re recommending a particular format) As someone who both loves audiobooks and also needs audiobooks due to disabilities (I have chronic migraines and chronic fatigue, both of which make reading physical formats really painful), I 100% agree and I too am so beyond done with the constant discourse. Beyond it being ableist, I also find it weird since, like you, I always point out that stories were first consumed in the oral tradition. There is also a tinge of a Western-centric worldview with the obsession with written stories too, as many Indigenous American and African societies solely used oral tradition until colonization, which mean many BIPOC mythology and folklore is instantly dismissed from being part of “The Canon.” Further, scientists have found time and time again that your brain processes a story the same whether you’re listening to it or reading it with your eyes! So it genuinely does just come down to personal opinion! Great post 🙂 I don’t get it either. I don’t read audio books as I don’t think that they would hold my attention as well and also, they take much longer than when I read to myself. However, the story and words are the same which ever method you use to read them. As a novice writer, I see “read as much as you can” a lot as a piece of writing advice. It’s not incorrect, but (beyond just acquiring a command of writing a language) what it actually means is “consume as many [works of your chosen type] as you can.” Reading books (again, talking about prose here) is not limited to the act of identifying ink symbols on a sheet of pressed paper. It’s the act of consuming and processing information, and in the case of fiction, stories, in a prosaic/narrative form. Whether the story gets told to you or you read it yourself is completely secondary. There are people who are neither visual nor auditive learners, but who learn much better from stories regardless of format. If reading was the same as just visual recognition, then you wouldn’t have that kind of distinction. Wow, I can’t believe people are still making an issue of this! I feel that there have been snobs saying audiobooks don’t count for years… and why do they care? As you say, there’s a weird fixation on what other people read. Who cares if my total for the year is higher than someone else’s? Who cares if my numbers include audiobooks? It’s just a weird thing to even bother about, in my opinion. Enjoying a book is enjoying a book, period… and if the person making the complaint makes an exception for people who are physically unable to read printed material, then they’re negating their entire point right there. Audiobooks are books! (So yes, my response to the AITA question is — definitely yes!) Sorry. I don’t like audio books and I don’t count it as reading. Whenever I’m in book club with people who listened, 90% of the time they missed important things, like no recollection of certain scenes or plot points. They had no self picture of what a hat after looked like. Admittedly they got a vivid sense of place for description. THANK YOU!!! I drive 30 miles each way for work and would not be able to read at all without audio books. This person’s perspective s fairly narrow and shows a certain level of privilege they are not accounting for. I dunno. I don’t think it’s necessarily a slam to say that something is not reading. They are two different learning channels, both using language, but reading by definition is visual. It’s like, I dunno, you went on a spinach or a kale diet. Both are accomplishments, but spinach ain’t kale. For me, it is actually much harder to focus on spoken words than on printed words. My mind is always wandering during the sermon, for example. For my husband, it’s the opposite. He cannot not listen when someone is speaking or when music is playing. He hears every word. I’m waiting for the audio versions of my books to come out so that he can finally … enjoy … them. Hehe I can understand a bit of pedantry, however once someone is worrying about other people’s stats and saying effectively that it doesn’t count as consuming the book, then there’s an issue. To use your kale/spinach analogy, your stomach will be just as full from either one 😉 I can understand that. I also have more visual tendencies (but, mostly for vision reasons, have shifted my habits). Yeah definitely. I wouldn’t argue the person hasn’t absorbed the content. For example, I hadn’t read Hegel or Gramschi or Foucault, but now I have listened to podcasts that excerpt from, analyze, and summarize them extensively. I still don’t say “I’ve read …” just because I’m pedantic I guess haha! And even if I had personally read them with my eyeballs, it would have been in translation anyway, so if someone wanted to be a snob they could ding me on that. WHAT? Who says audiobooks isn’t reading, send them to me and I’ll set them straight 😉 No seriously though, I get you points and agree completely. No matter how you consume the book you are getting the story experience, for damn sure it counts as reading! 😀 I’m not a fan of audiobooks as they aren’t for me. I get distracted too easily and having a kid at home I actually need to keep my ears open! But I don’t have anything against them and they sure count as reading. Books are books no matter the format. Socrates/Plato would probably have something to say to that anti-audiobook guy, given how they seem to prefer the oral tradition over the new written upstart. But seriously, what is with all these book gatekeeping folks? I saw one recently who was trying to argue that all books should have a minimum word count and I was like… huh?? I adore audiobooks! I have lengthy commute, that is bearable because of the audiobooks I listen to. To say audiobooks is not reading is ableist and rude. My daughter struggled with reading, but enjoyed audiobooks as it let her share in the love of stories in books that her friends were reading. Personally, I don’t prefer audio books but that is only because I like the act of reading itself and holding a book in my hand. But I do think this is just a personal preference and I do feel that audio books are a legitimate form of reading for those who enjoy them. They do serve the same purpose as reading a book and so we can’t say they are less valuable. I feel like people can get very pedantic over language (read vs listen), but strangely enough only with this issue! And when you bring up Braille as in do they say people ‘feel’ those books, they go very quiet because no one said that someone felt their book and expect to be understood. Nor do they say that someone using Braille to read books isn’t ‘really reading’. But like you mention, they wouldn’t say to someone with vision problems (or, I’m assuming, someone with dyslexia) that they’re not actually reading books when using audiobooks, so why is it okay to say to other people who are using audiobooks for other reasons? (Yes, I’ve recently had this discussion and it annoys me still). I really don’t understand where people pulled this narrative of audiobooks not not being real reading, you are getting the exact same story as would using a physical book so their point makes no sense. And I can’t help but laugh when people say it’s easier than actually reading the book. The whole reason I cant get into audiobooks is because I find them much harder and can’t focus on them long enough to actually get what is happening in the story unless it’s a book that I know really well. Maybe because I grew up with books and audiobooks weren’t really something I thought about much. I still don’t. It’s something else but I sometimes try it with podcasts and only once in the last few years where I tried reading + listening at the same time. It’s helpful for listening to various types of dialects at some sort. Maybe, I’ll do that more often, it was fun so far. To your question: I don’t really dislike or like audiobooks. Just never really thought – or think – of them.

I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?”

yes

Publishing

Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?

no_statement

"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".

https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852

Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...

Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…

Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.

no

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/why-bees-are-essential-people-and-planet

Why bees are essential to people and planet

Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole. “Increasing crop and regional farm diversity as well as targeted habitat conservation, management or restoration, is one way of combating climate change and promoting biodiversity,” says UN Environment Programme (UNEP) biodiversity specialist Marieta Sakalian. “Governments need to take the lead.” It is precisely to encourage governments, organizations, civil society and concerned citizens to protect pollinators and their habitats that the UN has declared 20 May World Bee Day. World Bee Day raises awareness of the essential role bees, and other pollinators play in keeping people and the planet healthy. The date coincides with the birthday of Anton Janša, who in the 18th century pioneered modern beekeeping techniques in his native Slovenia and praised the bees for their ability to work so hard while needing so little attention. For further information please contact Marieta Sakalian, Senior Programme Management Officer and Coordinator for Healthy and Productive Ecosystems at UNEP.

Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://www.canr.msu.edu/nativeplants/pollination

Pollination - Native Plants and Ecosystem Services

Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants. Where and how do bees live? Most bee species dig nests in soil, while others utilize plants, either by boring holes in pithy plant stems or wood, or by nesting in galleries made by wood-boring beetles in trees or other preexisting cavities. Bumble bees are known to nest in abandoned rodent burrows and feral honey bees are known to nest in tree hollows. Bees use a variety of materials to build their nests. Most bees line their nest cells with a waxy material they produce themselves, but others use pieces of leaves, small pebbles mixed with resin from tree sap, or mud to form the cells in which they lay their eggs. Why do bees need flowers throughout the growing season? Many bee species are solitary (each female produces offspring in her own nest) with only one generation of bees produced per year. However, other species nest communally (several females share a nest) or have elaborate social structures with division of labor within the colony (usually with a single queen and many workers). These kinds of bees produce multiple generations per year. This means that bees that produce multiple generations each year need food resources (pollen and nectar) across most of the growing season to produce strong colonies. Providing plants in a landscape with overlapping bloom periods will help these bees survive and prosper. View our information about selecting plants for overlapping bloom and appeal to pollinators. Bees need our help! Bee communities, both wild and managed, have been declining over the last half century as pesticide use in agricultural and urban areas increased. Changes in land use have resulted in a patchy distribution of food and nesting resources. Concerned bee researchers recently met to discuss the current pollinator status in North America and to publish a report about it. Since January (2007), there have been a number of reports in the media about the mysterious disappearance of large numbers of honey bees called colony collapse disorder. This has many growers concerned about how they will continue to be able to pollinate their crops. Now more than ever, it is critical to consider practices that will benefit pollinators by providing habitats free of pesticides, full of nectar and pollen resources, and with ample potential nesting resources. MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer, committed to achieving excellence through a diverse workforce and inclusive culture that encourages all people to reach their full potential. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Issued in furtherance of MSU Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Quentin Tyler, Director, MSU Extension, East Lansing, MI 48824. This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. The 4-H Name and Emblem have special protections from Congress, protected by code 18 USC 707.

Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/the-importance-of-bees

The importance of bees as pollinators | Kew

Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators. This, however, is just a short-term solution. What we really need is to restore our eco-systems and create landscapes to support diverse flora and fauna.

Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-are-bees-important-to-humans

Why bees are so important to human life and health

Bees are significant for many reasons. They have historical importance, contribute to human health, and play a role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Health products Not all bees produce honey, but it is one of the main reasons people value them. The substance is a natural sweetener with many potential health qualities. People have used bees and bee-related products for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. Researchers have noted claims that it has antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties. In traditional medicine, people use honey when treating a wide variety of conditions. While many of these uses do not have scientific backing, they include: Beeswax is another important product that people have previously used in waterproofing and fuel. It currently has benefits for health and features in a number of skincare products. Additionally, pharmaceutical industries use it in ointments. Pollination In recent years, it has become clear that honey may not be the most important reason to protect bees. This is because bees play a crucial role in pollination, where they use the hairs on their bodies to carry large grains of pollen between plants. Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them. In financial terms, the pollination of fruits and vegetables by wild bees across the United States has a high economic value. One 2020 study found that wild bees were responsible for a significant portion of net income from blueberries. There is a direct link between the economic yield of farmers and the presence of bees. In 2012, experts estimated that total pollination to be worth $34 billion, with a large portion of this amount due to bees. Green backyards and gardens can be vital resources for bees. Growing native flowers and leaving weeds to develop can contribute to bee health and numbers by providing food and shelter. Reducing landscaping activities, such as mowing or pruning, can help bees by increasing the amount of vegetation available. According to a 2019 study, as well as benefitting the bees, increasing rural spaces in urban areas can boost human mental and emotional well-being. Nonscientists and volunteers can contribute to research through citizen science initiatives, where people report what they see in their local area. This can help experts understand what is happening in a particular area or country. For example, a citizen-based 2020 study revealed that squash bees occupy a wide geographic range and prefer farms with less soil disturbance. Additionally, in the 2007 Great Pollinator Project, a partnership in New York encouraged members of the public to watch bees and record the types of wildflowers they visited. Such findings help scientists find useful ways to protect bees. However, this depends on people being able to identify species correctly. Therefore, learning about bee species and habits can also help individuals protect them. Bees have cultural and environmental importance as pollinators and producers of honey and medicinal products. The movement of pollen between plants is necessary for plants to fertilize and reproduce. Both farmed and wild bees control the growth and quality of vegetation — when they thrive, so do crops. Bees are vital when it comes to food security. However, the welfare and number of bees worldwide are in decline, and it is essential to protect them to maintain human well-being. How we reviewed this article: Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy.

Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/why-do-we-need-bees

Why do we need bees? | Friends of the Earth

Why do we need bees? Bees are vital to a healthy environment and healthy economy. They're also simply beautiful and fascinating little insects. But what makes them so special? Published: 25 Jul 2017 | 4 minute read The need for bees We need bees. We may take them and other pollinators like butterflies and hoverflies for granted, but they're vital to stable, healthy food supplies and key to the varied, colourful and nutritious diets we need (and have come to expect). Bees are perfectly adapted to pollinate, helping plants grow, breed and produce food. They do so by transferring pollen between flowering plants and therefore keeping the cycle of life turning. The vast majority of plants we need for food rely on pollination, especially by bees: from almonds and vanilla to apples and squash. Bees also pollinate around 80% of wildflowers in Europe, so our countryside would be far less interesting and beautiful without them. But bees are in trouble. There's growing public and political concern at bee decline across the world. This decline is caused by a combination of stresses – from loss of habitat and food sources to exposure to pesticides and the effects of climate breakdown. More than ever before, we need to recognise the importance of bees to nature and to our lives. And we need to turn that into action to ensure they don't just survive but thrive. Types of bee Not all bees are the same. There are over 20,000 known species of bee globally. Around 270 species of bee have been recorded in the UK. Only 1 of these is the famous Honeybee. Most Honeybees are kept by beekeepers in colonies of managed hives. The rest of our bees are wild, including 25 bumblebee species and more than 220 types of solitary bee. Like Honeybees, the familiar Bumblebees live in social colonies - usually in holes in the ground or tree cavities. Solitary bees tend to nest on their own, as the name suggests. Each female builds and provisions her own nest with food. Solitary bees include Mining bees which nest in the ground, as well as Mason bees and Leafcutter bees that nest in holes in dead wood, banks and walls. Bees = perfect pollinators Thanks to bees we can enjoy a range of foods from apples and pears to coffee and vanilla. And if you are wearing cotton, that's because the cotton plant your threads came from was pollinated. "More than 90% of the leading global crop types are visited by bees." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Bees gather pollen to stock their nests as food for their young. They have special features to collect it - like branched hairs called 'scopae' or combs of bristles called pollen baskets on their legs. As bees visit plants seeking food, pollen catches on their bodies and passes between plants, fertilising them – that's pollination. Bees are not the world's only pollinators. Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive. But our existence would be more precarious and our diets would be dull, poorer and less nutritious. And not just for want of honey. Even some plants grown to feed to livestock for meat production, such as clover and alfalfa, depend at least partly on bee pollination. "Loss of pollinators could lead to lower availability of crops and wild plants that provide essential micro-nutrients for human diets, impacting health and nutritional security and risking increased numbers of people suffering from vitamin A, iron and folate deficiency." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Governments and food producers talk a lot about food security, yet without bees our food supply would be insecure. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identified encouraging pollinators - particularly bees - as one of the best sustainable ways to boost food security and support sustainable farming. All this natural crop pollination fills pockets as well as our bellies. The global market value linked to pollinators is between US$235bn and US$557bn each year. In the UK alone, the services of bees and other pollinators are worth £691m a year, in terms of the value of the crops they pollinate. It would cost the UK at least £1.8bn a year to employ people to do the work of these pollinators, yet bees do it for free. Bees are important to a healthy environment Bees are a fantastic symbol of nature. That they are in trouble is a sign that our natural environment is not in the good shape it should be. By keeping the cycle of life turning, bees boost the colour and beauty of our countryside. Some 80% of European wildflowers require insect pollination. Many of them such as foxglove, clovers and vetches rely on bees. Pollinators allow plants to fruit, set seed and breed. This in turn provides food and habitat for a range of other creatures. So the health of our natural ecosystems is fundamentally linked to the health of our bees and other pollinators. Maintaining our native flora also depends on healthy pollinator populations. This includes wild flowers such as poppies, cornflowers and bluebells, as well as trees and shrubs. The close relationship between pollinators and the plants they pollinate is evident in the parallel declines seen across the UK and Europe: 76% of plants preferred by bumblebees have declined in recent decades, with 71% seeing contractions in their geographical range. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects.

Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://www.pthomeandgarden.com/5-ways-bees-are-important-to-the-environment/

5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment | Premier Tech Home ...

5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals. 3. Food Source Bees produce honey to feed their colonies during the cold winter months. Humans have harvested honey for thousands of years, but we aren’t the only ones who consider it a sweet snack. Critters like birds, racoons, opossums, and insects will raid beehives for a taste of nutritious honey (and bee larvae). Bees themselves are also a part of the food chain. At least 24 species of bird, including the blackbird, ruby-throated hummingbird, and starling, prey on bees. Many spiders and insects, like dragonflies and praying mantises, eat bees as well. 2. Wildlife Habitats Bees are known for their elaborate hives, but they also help build homes for millions of other insects and animals. Their role as pollinators is vital in the growth of tropical forests, savannah woodlands, and temperate deciduous forests. Many tree species, like willows and poplars, couldn’t grow without pollinators like bees. Even your own garden serves as a home for hundreds of tiny creatures, from birds and squirrels to thousands of tiny insects. If bees disappeared, the animals that depend on these plants for survival would vanish as well. 1. Biodiversity As pollinators, bees play a part in every aspect of the ecosystem. They support the growth of trees, flowers, and other plants, which serve as food and shelter for creatures large and small. Bees contribute to complex, interconnected ecosystems that allow a diverse number of different species to co-exist. There is no doubting the importance of bees to our food supply. Without them, our gardens would be bare and our plates empty. But we should also remember the other reasons bees are important to the environment.

5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence

How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...

How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.

How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.

no

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/

Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says

Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.

Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.

no

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

yes_statement

"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".

https://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Iowas-Wildlife/Pollinators

Pollinators

What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page. Iowa is a very important state for this species and the Iowa DNR along with numerous partners AND many citizens have been working hard to make sure the Monarch Butterfly is here to delight us for many years to come. Read below for more information about the Monarch Butterfly in Iowa! Learn more about the monarch: The most important thing to know about the Monarch butterfly is that it needs Milkweed. Any plant in the genus Asclepias will do; Common Milkweed, Swamp Milkweed, Whorled Milkweed, Butterfly Weed to name a few; but the Monarch must have some milkweed to eat as a caterpillar in order to complete its life cycle which it will go through several times in a year’s span. In the middle of all of this, Monarchs throw in that truly astounding migration to Mexico and back. Monarchs usually show up in Iowa late in the month of May and in force in June. These individuals are “2nd generation” meaning that they are the offspring of butterflies that left Mexico in March and stopped over in the Southern U.S. (primarily Oklahoma and Texas) to reproduce. These first Monarchs to arrive in Iowa start nectaring and laying eggs on milkweeds which then develop through 5 stages or instars of caterpillar before forming a chrysalis and emerging as an adult butterfly. This entire cycle from egg to adult monarch takes roughly 20 - 30 days (the length of time is somewhat temperature dependent) and then the adults live for about 2-6 weeks. This cycle repeats itself at least twice more in Iowa before the notable and special migratory generation is produced (usually the 4th generation of individuals produced in the U.S.), let’s call it the Super Generation. This Super Generation is produced in late August and early September in Iowa and they start their much longer life span (6-7 months) by beginning the journey south to Mexico, nectaring along the way. A few may stop to breed again further south but most keep flying until they reach Mexico, stopping only to gather energy from nectar producing plants and often gathering in large roosts in trees along the way. Timeline: Arrive in Iowa: Late May/Early June First Iowa Generation: June-July Second Iowa Generation: July to August Third Iowa Generation “The Super Generation”: August to Early September So where can you find Monarchs while they are in Iowa? Almost anywhere! Monarchs are strong flyers and they will use that ability to seek out milkweed and flowers to nectar on wherever they can find it. Usually, because these types of plants need sunlight, monarchs are found in open areas dominated by grass and flowering plants. This could be your yard, a “weedy” roadside, a native prairie, an old field, that odd ½ acre not planted to crops...you name it! If it has milkweed, or some tasty flowers, a Monarch can find it. This is one thing Monarchs have in their favor and the best thing all of us can do to help save the monarch is put habitat, containing milkweeds and nectar plants, on the ground. See the “Creating Habitat for all Pollinators” section for tips on how to do this. Iowa is a very important state for the conservation of Monarch butterflies. An estimated 38% of Monarchs (Summary of Study on Monarch Joint Venture website) that end up in Mexico for the winter come from the Upper Midwest with Iowa right at its heart. No comprehensive population estimate of Monarchs exist for Iowa but we have been recording them as part of wider butterfly surveys across the state, mostly on public land. The Monarch is still one of the most abundant butterflies that are recorded on these surveys but the trend over the last ten years has mirrored the downward trend that has been documented in the wintering population in Mexico. Their migratory lifestyle, puts monarchs at risk and requires them to have especially large populations to be able to sustain a healthy existence as a species. This means, unlike other imperiled species which are difficult to find, just because the Monarch may still be seen regularly does not mean it isn’t in trouble. Wider continuous monitoring of the Iowa population will be necessary moving forward! Creating Habitat for all Pollinators One thing pollinators have going for them is that most species can take advantage of habitat almost anywhere it is provided. This means that any landowner, whether they own a lot that can be measured in square feet or one that is many acres, can create habitat for pollinators. The main characteristics a good pollinator garden needs to have are: 1) flowering plants in a 2) sunny spot that 3) bloom from Spring through Fall. We would also recommend, if possible, to consider using predominantly plant species that are native to Iowa. There are many species to choose from and they are adapted to Iowa’s environment. Most are perennials or good self-seeders (less maintenance!) and our native pollinators love them. A pollinator garden can be as formal or as “wild” as you would like. If planting a smaller area that you want to look more formal, it is likely best to plant plugs of prairie species rather than trying to spread seed. If planting a larger area and a more natural look is okay, a mix diverse in flowering prairie species will be more economical, though it will take a bit longer (2-3 years) and a little more maintenance (mowing) before it starts looking its best. The following pdf includes a more detailed description of how to create monarch and pollinator habitat, both large and small, and includes a species list and links to more resources. For larger areas, if you'd like some assistance, landowners can contact the DNR Wildlife Bureau’s Private Lands biologists for advice and assistance. The DNR also has staff that can work with private landowners and you will find a great guide to shrubs and trees that are good for pollinators on their webpage. Prominent Pollinators BEES and WASPS: There are 4000 species of bees in North America. The exact number of species in Iowa is unknown but there are likely between 300-400 native species. The species people are most familiar with, the Honey bee, is not a native species but was introduced to the United States for its ability to produce honey. There are many more species of native bees, like bumble and mason bees, which also play an important role in pollination. The Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) which has a few occurrences in Iowa, recently became the first bumblebee to be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. MOTHS: More than 2000 species of moths have been recorded in the state of Iowa! There are day-flying and night-flying moths, micromoths with a wingspan of 3 mm and giants like the Luna moth which can measure up to 114 mm from wingtip to wingtip. Little is known about the status of any of the moth species in the state. STAY CONNECTED Sign up for updates and join over 20,000 subscribers who are receiving content from the Iowa DNR directly in their inbox. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Our Mission To conserve and enhance our natural resources in cooperation with individuals and organizations to improve the quality of life in Iowa and ensure a legacy for future generations.

What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

no_statement

"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".

https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Wildlife/Learn-About-Wildlife/Pollinators-in-Connecticut

Pollinators in Connecticut

It seems that JavaScript is not working in your browser. It could be because it is not supported, or that JavaScript is intentionally disabled. Some of the features on CT.gov will not function properly with out javascript enabled. Pollinators in Connecticut What Is Pollination? Some plants require pollination to reproduce. This is the process by which pollen grains, produced in flowers’ stamens, are transmitted to a pistil where the pollen grains will then fertilize the flower. This leads to seed and fruit production. As genetic diversity is important for healthy populations, flowers have evolved in several ways to ensure that pollen spreads between different plants of the same species. Pollen may be released into the wind and carried to other flowers, and some plants will even release pollen into flowing water. However, the vast majority of flowering plants make use of pollinators: animals that carry pollen from one flower to another. Plants and pollinators have a mutualistic relationship – both benefit from the association. Pollinators may consume pollen and nectar provided by the plants and, in the process, additional pollen inadvertently will get caught on the hairs on the animal’s body. When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise. Certain crops, such as tomatoes and eggplants, greatly benefit from buzz pollination to the point that bumble bees are also used as commercial pollinators. Bumble bee species are sometimes released into greenhouses to pollinate the crops within. This is how we get “hothouse tomatoes” in the cold weather months. In the wild, bumble bees form small colonies with a queen and just a few workers. These colonies are too small to yield honey like honey bee colonies. (A honey bee colony can consist of tens of thousands of individuals capable of producing an excess of honey that humans can harvest without compromising the bees' food supply.) Bumble bee colonies are usually located underground in an abandoned rodent tunnel or similar excavation. While some bees are social beings, like honey bees and bumble bees, most of the 300 Connecticut bee species are solitary, meaning that they do not form colonies. Female solitary bees lay eggs in cavities in the ground or in wood, and line those cavities with leaves and mud. Mining bees, digger bees, oil-collecting bees are all solitary, ground nesting bees. While it may be easy to notice honey bees and bumble bees in your garden, it is important to remember that they are not the only ones pollinating crops and flowers while we reap the benefits of their services. Butterflies and Moths: Although butterflies and moths do not provide the same amount of pollination services as bees, they are certainly conspicuous creatures, garnering admiration and attention from scientists and citizens alike. Lepidopterans (the scientific name for butterflies and moths) do not consume pollen, but they will drink nectar using their long, tubular mouthpart (proboscis). Some plants have evolved specifically to be pollinated by these insects, hiding nectar deep in the flower such that it may only be reached with an extended proboscis. Generally, butterflies and moths do not carry as much pollen as bees because they are not covered in fine hairs. In addition, the long proboscis allows butterflies and moths to access a flower's nectar without becoming coated in pollen. Some pollen, however, may attach to the insects' feet and abdomen, facilitating pollen transfer between the flowers they visit. In a classic story of biological detective work, Charles Darwin once predicted the existence of a moth 40 years before its eventual discovery. He was shown an orchid from Madagascar with an exceptionally long, nectar-filled tubular structure (known as a spur) on the flower. He guessed that a moth must exist with a proboscis just long enough that the animal’s head would brush up against the flower’s stamens so that it would transfer pollen to the pistil of the next flower it drank from. In 1903, such a moth was documented in Madagascar, named Xanthopan morgani praedicta in honor of the prediction. Flies are important and often overlooked pollinators. While many plants offer bright colors and nectar to attract bee visitors, other plants may mimic carrion or dung with dark-colored flowers and strong, pungent odors to draw in flies, such as fungus gnats and carrion flies. Many hover flies (family Syrphidae) are bee mimics in both appearance and behavior. Though they share the same black and yellow coloration we associate with bees and wasps, they do not sting. In this way, animals that have learned to avoid being stung by bees and wasps will leave the stingless flies alone. This type of mimicry is known as Batesian mimicry – one harmless organism resembles a harmful organism to gain protection from predation. Pollinating flies are generally not covered in as much hair as bees, though they will still transfer pollen between plants from what sticks to their bodies as they forage. Beetles: Pollination by beetles accounts for a small percentage of overall flower pollination. Nevertheless, beetles, ranging from scarab and long-horned beetles to checkered beetles and tumbling flower beetles, may transfer pollen between flowers. Magnolias, for example, are visited by many insects during their flowering period; however, it is the beetles that are present when pollen is plentiful. In fact, the fossil record shows that magnolias evolved in a world without butterflies or bees. Therefore, this plant must have relied on other insects as pollinators. Given that beetles existed at the time magnolias arose and are still associated with the plant, it is reasonable to assume that beetles were some of their early pollinators. Over the past decade, scientists have increasingly talked about pollinator declines – the noted decrease in these beneficial insects across the globe. Commercial honey bee hives have been experiencing significant losses in recent years, prompting investigation into its causes. Scientists and the public also have noticed that the once common rusty-patched bumblebee (Bombus affinis) has gone missing from the majority of its range in North America. Once commonly found across most of the eastern United States, it was only documented from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Maryland between 2001 and 2008. As for other pollinators, efforts are currently underway to search through existing specimens in museum and private collections to determine changing trends in pollinator abundance and diversity over time. Understanding population trends of the often overlooked wild bees is important given the pollination services they provide. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that 75 percent of the fruits and vegetables we consume require bee pollination. In commercially raised bumble bees, several parasites have been identified as sources of mortality. These parasites have unfortunately escaped into wild bumble bee populations. Pesticide application and pesticide drift (the travel of chemicals from the intended area to non-target plants) also are believed to be killing bumble bees and other insect pollinators, including butterflies and moths. Habitat loss and fragmentation are hurting pollinator populations as more and more foraging areas and nesting habitats are destroyed. These vital members of our ecosystems are being threatened in many ways, and for most species, we do not yet know the extent of the damage. In 2016, Public Act 16-17 was passed restricting the use of pesticides that cause serious harm to bees and other pollinators. It reduces the spraying of neonicotinoid pesticides, establishes a program to develop model pollinator habitat, and helps identify opportunities to conserve, protect, and enhance pollinator habitat. Pollinators are in trouble, but you can help! Local nectar and pollen sources are key to supporting local pollinators. To maximize the use of your yard, consider planting flowers that bloom from early spring through late autumn, thus providing a place where early-season up through the last-season pollinators can “fuel up.” Remove invasive plants, such as burning bush, autumn olive, Japanese barberry, and others, in favor of native plant species. For example, planting wild geranium and highbush blueberry for the early season; swamp milkweed and New Jersey tea for the middle of the season; and New England aster and wrinkleleaf goldenrod for the late season will provide blooming flowers from spring through fall. With the right mix of plants, you can turn your property into a haven for the entire year! Pollinators need places to nest, feed, and protect their offspring. By managing your property to be pollinator-friendly, you may be able to greatly improve pollinator habitat. Maintaining natural areas (unmanicured areas of your property) is key for long-term pollinator protection. If you have a forest, meadow, or wetland on your property, bees will use those areas extensively for both feeding and nesting. You can also give wild bees a helping hand by providing nesting sites. These sites could be patches of untilled, bare, well-drained soil, which is perfect for many ground-nesting bees. Sites for wood-nesting bees include old logs with beetle burrows (for mason bees and leafcutter bees), or brush piles (for safe places to hibernate). To encourage butterflies, you should plant the caterpillar host plants. For example, monarchs need milkweeds to feed on as caterpillars. New Jersey tea is eaten by many Connecticut insects, making it a great addition to a pollinator garden. Planting native food plants in your yard or garden is a great way to encourage pollinators to flourish! No matter the life stage, these insects are best protected by avoiding disturbances to their chosen wintering sites. It is important to support these organisms across their entire life cycle, including over winter. For example, mated queen bumble bees spend the winter under leaf litter or soil. Lepidopterans may overwinter as eggs, caterpillars, pupae, or adults. Plant management or soil disturbance is best conducted during late summer or fall to minimize negative effects to pollinators over wintering periods. If possible, management should occur in such a way that much of the habitat is left undisturbed in any given year, helping to protect species from the direct impacts of disturbance. Above all, any space created for pollinators should be pesticide free. Insecticides are especially harmful to pollinators if applied at the wrong time or application rate. While it may not always be possible to completely eliminate pesticides from your garden or yard, you can certainly reduce the impacts on pollinators with a simple few steps. Chemicals should not be applied when pollinators are active – most pollinators will be resting during the night. Similarly, if possible, pesticides should be applied to the parts of the plant without flowers so that pollinators are not exposed to chemicals while visiting the flowers. Pollinators and the White House, 2014: You are not alone in your interest in pollinator protection! In June 2014, President Barack Obama released a memorandum outlining his commitment to “honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies.” He created a taskforce to develop and help implement recommendations for saving pollinator populations. President Obama highlighted the importance of these animals in our natural and agricultural systems, championing their cause from the highest office in the nation.

When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise.

yes

Biodiversity

Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?

no_statement

"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/pests-and-pollinators-23564436/

Pests and Pollinators | Learn Science at Scitable

Humans determine if an insect is beneficial, benign or pestiferous. Even when an insect is classified as a pest, it can have, under different circumstances, a beneficial role. A fly in a house is a pest, but that same fly is beneficial in its role as a detritivore. Termites are pests when invading homes, but are beneficial when fulfilling their ecological role in a forest. Of all the insects in the world, only 1% of insects are pests (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005) but they are responsible for the loss of 13% of crops and 9% of forest production (Pimental et al. 2000). The Balsam woolly adelgid, Adelges picease, has destroyed nearly all of the Fraser firs (Abies fraseri) in the southern Appalachian Mountains and is thought to be responsible for the loss of two native bird species (Alsop & Laughlin 1991). Formosan termites, Coptotermes formosanus, cause over $1 billion in structural damage per year (Corn et al. 1999). Frequently, pest insects are invasive species, such as the Balsam woolly adelgid and the Formosan termite. Within their native ranges – Europe and southern China, respectively – these insects are less likely to be pestiferous. Most insects are beneficial to humans either directly or indirectly (Peters 1993). Directly beneficial insects include pollinators and insect predators and parasites of pests. Other insects provide humans with material goods such as honey (honey bees), silk (silk moths), dyes and shellac (scale insects), and tannic acid and inks (insect galls). Without insects, weed control would be more difficult. In Australia, an introduced species of cactus, the prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), was controlled by Cactoblastis cactorum, a moth (Wilson & Schwarzlaender 2004). Predator, parasite, and parasitoid insects provide top-down management of herbivore populations (Naylor & Ehrlich 1997). During the 1800’s, cottony-cushion scale – a scale insect – was accidently introduced into California citrus groves from Australia (Grafton-Cardwell & Gu 2003). The citrus industry was saved when the Vedalia lady beetle, a natural predator of the cottony-cushion scale, was introduced. Indirect benefits from insects may be more numerous and important than direct benefits. Insects indirectly benefiting humans include all insect herbivores, prey, predators, and detritivores because they are an integral part of the biotic community of ecosystems (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). A well-functioning ecosystem provides services such as soil fertility, clean air, and clean water. Termites, cockroaches, and other soil dwelling insects, help to break down plant debris. Flies, beetles, and moths, help to decompose dead animals. Dung beetles are critical for the decomposition of animal feces. Insects are food for bats, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and many mammals. Aquatic insects such as mayflies and stoneflies are used to monitor the health of streams and lakes. Insect Pests An important group of insect pests is those that transmit human diseases (Table 1). Malaria, responsible for 700,000-1,000,000 deaths annually, is transmitted by Anopheles sp. mosquitoes (Centers for Disease Control). The female Anopheles ingests the disease agent, Plasmodium spp. – a parasitic protist – from an infected human. After an incubation period in the mosquito of 7-30 days, transmission to an uninfected human is possible. Sub-tropics of Africa and Asia, Western Pacific, equatorial South America Mosquito (Anopheles spp.) World-wide except Antarctica River Blindness Sub-Saharan Africa, limited area of South America, Yemen Black Flies (Simulium sp.) World-wide except Antarctica (fast flowing streams) Typhus (louse-borne) Where body lice are present Body Lice (Pediculus humanus humanus) Where humans are present West Nile Virus (humans are a dead-end host) Africa, North America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Oceania Mosquito (primarily Culex sp.) World-wide except Antarctica Table 1: Some human diseases and their insect vectors. Insects seldom become pests in natural ecosystems, but in managed or simplified ecosystems when an insect population become large enough to cause harm to people, crops, animals, or possessions, insects may be categorized as pests (Elizinga 2004). Pest outbreaks in natural ecosystems usually last 3-4 years, even with no intervention (Rotenberry et al. 1995). Various factors limit the length of a pest outbreak, including intraspecific competition for resources, diseases and parasites (Roland 1993). Agricultural pests, along with pests found in homes and landscaping, are usually problematic because of human created circumstances (Elizinga 2004). In managed, or simplified, ecosystems, such as cropland, orchards, or landscaped areas, the food supply for a pest may be increased while the habitat/niche of predators may be removed or reduced (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). The European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Ostrinia nubilalis) is a significant agricultural pest in the United States. As a result of the acreage density of corn in the Midwest, the moth larvae have an abundance of food while the prevalence of the adult parasitoid wasp, Macrocentris grandi, dependent on nectar plants for food, may be reduced. To address pest problems, the conditions favoring pest population growth must be considered. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consists of tactics to prevent and methods to monitor and control pests (Elizinga 2004, Peters 1993, Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). Some common prevention tactics used in homes include window and door screens to exclude flies and mosquitoes and washing clothes and linens, vacuuming, and bathing to prevent body parasites. Using plant varieties most suitable to environmental conditions, providing habitat for beneficial insects, keeping bushes and woodpiles away from buildings, and emptying containers with standing water are all methods to reduce pest populations in landscaping. If preventative measures fail, the least toxic pesticides are chosen first to reduce the risk of losing insects that help keep pest populations under control. Figure 6 shows the thinking process recommended when using IPM. Insects are key components of healthy ecosystems and people benefit from the goods and services provided by ecosystems. If habitat for beneficial insects is provided, fewer pest outbreaks are likely to occur. Managed ecosystems need to mimic non-simplified ecosystems by containing a mosaic of plants for beneficial insects. Butterflies and moths (Lepidopterans) are important pollinators of flowering plants in wild ecosystems and managed systems such as parks and yards. Butterflies and moths have different niches; butterflies are active during the day while moths are active in the evening and at night. Because the adult and juvenile forms of butterflies and moths do not eat the same food, it is necessary for an ecosystem – whether wild or managed – to contain both nectar and host plants (Berenbaum 2007). By ensuring the presence of host plants in an area, the adult moth or butterfly will be able to lay her eggs on the appropriate plants for the eggs to hatch and the larvae to feed. Without these host plants adult moths and butterflies may not be present even if the nectar plants are available. Some pollination relationships are quite specific. A specialist relationship exists between the yucca moth and the yucca plant. Moth larvae only eat seeds of the yucca plant, and the plant depends on adult moths carrying pollen to facilitate sexual reproduction (Pellmyr et al. 1996). These specialist relationships can be negatively impacted if there is a decline of either species. A major determinant of Monarch butterfly population size is the availability of its host and nectar plant, milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, (Brower et al. 2011). Milkweed prevalence decreased between 1999 and 2009 in Iowa corn and soybean fields following the widespread adoption of herbicide resistant cultivars (Hartzler 2010). While adult butterflies and moths are important pollinators, their larvae may be pests. The larvae of Cabbage White butterflies – an introduced speciesin the United States – are significant pests in Brassicaceae family plants (Snell-Rood & Papaj 2009, Cipollini 2002). The Eastern comma butterfly larva is a pest of hops (Dole 2003). The tobacco hornworm (larva of the sphinx moth) and the tomato hornworm (larva of the five-spot hawkmoth) can be significant pests of tobacco, tomato, potato, eggplant and pepper plants (Fraser et al. 2003). Clothes moth larvae can do damage by feeding on wool, felt, silk, fur, and feathers. Grain moths may be seen flying in kitchens and feed on flour or cereal grains. Figure 1 Honey bee, Apis mellifera, is an introduced, naturalized North American generalist pollinator. Honey bees are eusocial, forming a high organized society where each colony has overlapping generations, one queen who mates with multiple males a week after she emerges as an adult, and female workers who cooperate in the rearing of her full-, ¾- and half-sisters. Courtesy of Jon Sullivan. Bees are one of the largest groups of pollinators (Berenbaum 2007) and can be social or solitary animals. Honey bees (Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a). The frames in the top box of the hive are filled with honey and harvested by beekeepers. To prevent bears from eating the brood and honey and skunks and raccoons from eating adult bees, this apiary is enclosed with an electrified fence. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 3b The frames can be removed to inspect for pests and disease and evaluate the health of the colonies (b). Nurse bees are caring for the capped brood. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 4 Honey bees will usually build comb inside a cavity but in warm climates they may build comb outside to facilitate cooling. This hive photographed in January in Kauai, Hawaii is at least 8 years old. During the summer months, when pollen and nectar are more readily available, the number of bees occupying the hive is significantly greater and the comb will not be visible due to the number of bees. Feral colonies are common in Kauai, unlike the mainland United States, because the varroa mite, the most significant pest of honey bees, has not been introduced to Kauai. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Bumble bee colonies do not overwinter (Baer & Schmid-Hempel 2003). Each spring, mated queens emerge from hibernation to establish colonies. Each queen begins by locating a nest site and building wax pots (for nectar and pollen) and wax cells (for eggs). She will rear the first generation of adults who will take over the foraging and nest building tasks. The queen will continue to lay eggs and the colony will grow until late summer when reproductive males and females are reared and mate. All but the mated queens die before winter. There are approximately 17,000 solitary bee species (Berenbaum 2007). Many are active as adults for only a short time each year and pollinate a narrow range of plants (Bosch & Kemp 2004). For example, the mason bees (~ 130 species in North America) pollinate blueberries, blackberries, and cherries (Figure 5). After a female mason bee mates she finds a tube-like structure and builds a mud wall at the end. Her first step is to make numerous trips (~ 25) to collect nectar and pollen, which she places at the end of the tube. Next she backs into the tube and lays an egg on top of the nectar and pollen. Her final step is to build a mud wall to partition the tube. She will continue these three steps until female eggs fill the rear of the tube and male eggs fill the front. During each of her 25 foraging trips per egg, a mason bee female will visit up to 75 flowers. Figure 5 Mason bees are active in the spring and are excellent pollinators of a variety of crops including apples and blueberries. This Mason bee, Osmia cornifrons is the primary pollinator of apples in Japan and was introduced into the United States in 1977 by Suzanne Batra (USDA) for orchard pollination. Courtesy of Beatriz Moisset. To pollinate the almond crop, ~ 1 million honey bee colonies are needed in California every February. The Maine blueberries require ~ 50,000 colonies and New York apples need ~ 30,000 colonies. With the significant decline of honey bee colonies, there is concern about honey bee survival and our dependence on honey bees for crop pollination (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2011). The cause of honey bee population decline is unknown, but many researchers suspect habitat degradation, parasites, disease, and pesticides, to be contributing causes (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2010, Singh et al. 2010). Pollinator decline has not been limited to honey bees (Berenbaum 2007). Declines have been observed in bumble bee species, including a 96% decline in four North American species linked to Nosema bombi, a microsporidian (Cameron et al. 2011). Our knowledge of most native bumble bee and solitary bees is so limited that it is difficult to say conclusively if the suspected declines in populations or loss of species is occurring only at the regional level or if the declines are global (Berenbaum 2007). An insect’s relationship with humans is beneficial, benign or pestiferous only because we have defined it as such. Therefore some insects can have more than one relationship with humans. Honey bees pollinate our crops but may be considered a pest because they can sting. Ants are unwanted guests if found in a house but are important decomposer organisms for the maintenance of soil fertility. Food, lumber, clean air and water and all the other goods and services derived from ecosystems would not exist without insects. Living in balance with insects and the other component of ecosystems will aid human survival and prosperity. Glossary Apiary: A site where multiple honey bee colonies are kept in relatively close proximity. Detritivores: Detritivores feed on detritus (non-living, particulate, organic matter). Primary detritivores including fungi, bacteria and earthworms feed directly on detritus. Detritus is composed of dead plant and animal material, and the fecal waste of animals. Secondary detritivores feed on primary detritivores. Secondary detritus feeders include millipedes, centipedes, ants, termites, and wood beetles. In the case of termites and wood beetles, symbionts in their gut digest the cellulose in wood allowing these animals to obtain nutrients that would otherwise be inaccessible. Eusocial: True social. Sociality can range from solitary to true social. Solitary individuals undertake all activities alone. Aggregations for food, defense, or warmth is a type of pre-social behavior may occur in otherwise solitary species including Ladybird beetles, Monarch butterflies, and bark beetles. Subsocial behavior is when adults provide some type of care for their young, while communal behavior is when adults in the same generation share a nest site but the adults do not cooperate in caring for each other’s young. Quasisocial behavior includes communal behavior but includes cooperation in the care of the young. Semisocial individuals cooperate in care of the young but have a reproductive caste with workers who may be sterile. True social or Eusociality requires three behaviors: 1) overlapping generations in a common nest site, 2) reproductive castes, and 3) cooperate in the rearing of the young. Generalist: A generalist species is able to survive under a variety of environmental conditions. It will usually have more than one source of food, multiple acceptable types of nesting sites, etc. Usually the size of area in which generalists forage for food is smaller than is required for specialists who need a larger area because their food source is scarcer. Examples of generalists include human, rats, raccoons, cockroaches, and honey bees. Intraspecific: occurring or arising within a species. Naturalized: A naturalized species is an introduced species that has established itself outside of its native range and is acclimated to its new environment. It is able to survive and reproduce without human assistance. A naturalized species is sometimes considered an invasive species. Parasitoid: Parasitoids are insects that are free-living as adults. The adult female lays her eggs in or on a host from whom the resulting larvae obtain food. Unlike predators, the larvae of parasitoids consume only one host per lifetime. Pestiferous: bothersome or annoying. Specialist: A specialist species survives under a narrow range of environmental conditions. It will usually have a limited diet that will require it to have a larger foraging range due to their food source being scarcer. Examples of specialists include the panda, koala, Monarch butterfly and Mason bee. Snell-Rood, E. C. & Papaj, D. R. Patterns of phenotypic plasticity in common and rare environments: A study of host use and color learning in the Cabbage White butterfly Pieris rapae. The American Naturalist173, 615–631 (2009). Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Status of Pollinators in North America, Chair: May Berenbaum, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: The National Academies Press USA, 2007.

(Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a).

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/

Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...

Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]

Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728

Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics

Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.

Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism

Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...

Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.

-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44

Indian Animal Ethics | Think | Cambridge Core

Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.

Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics

Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics

Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.

The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/

Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...

Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666

Buddhist Ethics | Encyclopedia MDPI

Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.

no

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

yes_statement

"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613

Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE

It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

no_statement

"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

Five precepts - Wikipedia

The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118

1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,

no

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

no_statement

"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/

Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...

Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

no_statement

"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet

Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat

Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.

Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

no_statement

"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".

https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/

Buddhism

Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).

There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.

yes

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

no_statement

"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".

https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/

The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center

The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.

This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.

no

Religion

Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?

no_statement

"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14

The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...

Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study

On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’

no

Digital Rights

Are Data Breaches Inevitable?

yes_statement

"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.

https://theconversation.com/data-breaches-are-inevitable-heres-how-to-protect-yourself-anyway-109763

Data breaches are inevitable – here's how to protect yourself anyway

Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options. Longer passwords don’t have to be harder to remember: They could be easily recalled phrases like “MyFirstCarWasAToyotaCorolla” or “InHighSchoolIWon9Cross-CountryRaces.” It can be daunting to think about remembering all these different usernames and passwords. Password management software can help – though choose carefully as more than one of them have beenbreached. It can be even safer – despite conventional wisdom and decades of security advice – to write them down, so long as you trust everyone who has access to your home. With these straightforward steps – and the new mindset of thinking like a target who wants to avoid getting hit – you’ll be far less worried when news breaks of the next breach of some company’s enormous data files. Bad guys may get one of your usernames, and maybe even one of your passwords – so you’ll have to change those. But they won’t have all your credentials for all your online accounts. And if you use multi-factor authentication, the bad guys might not even be able to get into the account whose credentials they just stole. Focus on what’s most important to protect, and use simple – but effective – methods to protect yourself and your information.

Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options.

yes

Digital Rights

Are Data Breaches Inevitable?

yes_statement

"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.

https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos

Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos

Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.

In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,

no

Digital Rights

Are Data Breaches Inevitable?

yes_statement

"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/1512897/if-data-breaches-are-inevitable-how-can-consumers-protect-their-identity.html

If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their ...

Norton, an industry-leading global brand in consumer Cyber Safety, offers all-in-one device protection against viruses, malware, phishing, identity theft and more. We empower people to live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently today and for generations to come. We bring award-winning products & services in cybersecurity, online privacy and identity protection to more than 50 million users, providing them with a trusted ally in a complex digital world. Sponsored If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their Identity? BrandPost Sponsored by NortonFeb 14, 2023 3:46 pm PST Image: Shutterstock 1723557016 Cybercrime risk in Australia isn’t just increasing – it’s exploding at an almost exponential rate. As reported by the ABC, recent ACCC data shows that Australians lost more than $47 million per month from January to September this year, based on reports to the government body. That’s a 90 per cent increase in losses compared with the same period last year. With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity. A lot of the time, when a person’s data is breached, it’s not enough for the cyber criminals to act on. They’ll need more, so they’ll start to look for ways to gain the additional information. Be wary of phone calls from sources you don’t recognise, emails that ask you to confirm details, and messages about attempted password changes on your accounts. These are signs that a cyber criminal may have some data and is investigating you further. 2) Read your card and account statements closely. Any unusual transactions should be flagged immediately, even if they’re so small that you think you may have simply forgotten the purchase. 3) Any changes of details. If any correspondence with the company or service has some details changed, be sure to check when those changes were made and who authorised them. 4) Talk to an Identity Restoration Specialist. To further understand the best practice approach, as well as next steps, if can be useful consulting with a specialist. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help here, by giving you access to expertise to assist you from the start of the process right through to the end. There are also some steps that you can – and should – take to resecure your data immediately. That way, if cybercriminals do compromise systems that you’re on, getting the rest of the data that they need to commit identity fraud on you is much more difficult. 1) Change all your passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA). With 2FA, consider getting a dedicated token device, or a second, pre-paid phone that you use exclusively for that purpose. “Hijacking phones” is an increasingly common strategy by cyber criminals, where they will convince your phone company to move your number to their device, and, once they’ve done that, they can circumvent all of your 2FA defences. Most people’s phone numbers can be researched online, so having a secure number that you don’t share and isn’t public for the purposes of 2FA is an extra layer of protection. 2) Remove as much personally identifiable information from social media as possible. It might be nice getting birthday messages on your Facebook wall or Twitter feed, but your date of birth is one of the most common pieces of data for verification, and if a cybercriminal has it it can be integral to getting access to your accounts. 3) Consider freezing your credit ratings. If you are seeing suspicious activity, contact the credit reporting agencies and put a freeze on your credit ratings. This can be unfrozen when you next need to apply for credit, but it will immediately prevent identity fraudsters from using your identity to take out credit in your name. 4) Consider getting new cards and other identifying documents (such as licenses and the passport). Getting these re-issued will change the numbers and security details, making the old information worthless. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help with this as part of its solution. Finally, one thing that’s often overlooked in cases of identity theft is the cost of addressing it. Above and beyond the issue of any stolen money, dealing with identity theft can involve the use of lawyers and significant lost income in the time that you spend away from work. In addition to the monitoring and support features, Norton Identity Advisor Plus also includes insurance for losses and expenses related to identity theft, helping to minimise the overall impact for victims. While the social and political pressure is on organisations to be responsible with customer data, the threat profiles out there are simply too great, and the consensus is that security is more about minimising the impact of breaches than it is preventing them. At an individual level, consumers can do their part to protect themselves by being alert, understanding how to address a data breach, and then having the right tools and solutions to support them.

With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity.

yes

Digital Rights

Are Data Breaches Inevitable?

yes_statement

"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.

https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/security-breaches-inevitable-1/

Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable - Infosecurity ...

Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred. Therefore, with the newer NIS legislations, tick-box compliance exercises are well and truly a thing of the past; it will become vital for organizations to raise the bar and prove their compliance in line with these regulations to improve resilience. One way organizations can check themselves is by following a set of chosen cybersecurity frameworks (CSF), such as Cyber Essentials, NIST, ISO, CIS, etc., which will help determine the security measures they have in place are, in fact, appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, in efforts to postpone damages from threats that have made it beyond the initial phases, cybersecurity teams have invested in detection capabilities to identify lateral movement, privilege escalation, anomalous behavior, command and control traffic and so on. Ultimately, these controls seek to postpone the inevitable and delay the imminent. However, what stops security breaches from growing into major incidents and becoming catastrophic incidents is an organization’s ability to respond and recover effectively. This plays not only into the tools and cybersecurity frameworks (CSFs) selected by the organization to help protect them but also into the overall security culture of the business that acknowledges the need for continually doing better when it comes to cybersecurity. Continuous Improvement for a Stronger Security Culture Response and recovery controls move the bar away from cybersecurity and towards cyber resilience. Thus, not only can cybersecurity teams seek to control the frequency of breaches impacting the organization, but they also seek to limit the magnitude. The Japanese philosophical process of Kaizen, meaning ‘the pursuit of perfection’, can be applied to how organizations manage their adversarial defense strategies. Although perfection is unattainable in cybersecurity, this should not prevent cybersecurity teams from striving for continuous improvement. In doing so, organizations can strengthen their security culture as well as achieve successful risk management and improve resiliency as a result. For better or worse, security culture and resilience are inextricably linked. However, maintaining a strong security culture within cybersecurity teams can be challenging, particularly in a sector filled with experts with diverse opinions. A CSF can minimize a security breach’s frequency and magnitude and override individual opinions. Still, this raises the critical question of why many cybersecurity teams remain hesitant to commit to CSFs in the first place. The reality of this predicament is that many organizations fail before they’ve even started because they lack investing for a unifying purpose and disregard the importance of standardized goals. Even NIST agrees that culture can inform and, to an extent, define an organization’s risk management strategy, changing the language it uses in a recent update to encompass security awareness training and culture. This is not to say that organizations should dictate a one-size-fits-all approach to security controls. Instead, organizations need to comprehend that strengthening culture with the adoption of CSFs enables a defined thinking process that is applied to each cyber risk encountered. Therefore, by applying standardized tools to standardized thinking, organizations will have a unified approach to risk assessment that offers predictable levels of certainty and assurance, providing all the safe harbors that cyber resilience offers. The best security programs will not only have decision-making and culture initiatives mapped to a best practice CSF but also the security technology that enables alignment with these frameworks as well – giving organizations the reassurance and proof they need to demonstrate that they have taken appropriate measures to limit and contain security incidents.

Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred.

yes

Digital Rights

Are Data Breaches Inevitable?

yes_statement

"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.

https://www.securityinfowatch.com/cybersecurity/information-security/article/12052877/preparing-for-your-companys-inevitable-data-breach

When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when ...

When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide. Companies continue to increase their budgets for more and better security technology and yet the breaches continue to occur more frequently and with greater impact. The primary methods for protecting information are based on securing an organization’s perimeter. Things like firewalls, intrusion detection systems (IDS), multi-factor authentication and virtual private networks (VPN) are all based on keeping the cyber attackers out. As information technology evolves, the perimeter of an organization’s infrastructure continues to fade as a result of ever-increasing connectivity between customers, suppliers, and service providers. Add mobile devices (tablets, phones, etc.), teleworking and cloud computing to the mix and it is nearly impossible to define where the “perimeter” is. The problem with relying primarily on traditional perimeter security approaches is that many of the recent high profile breaches were not the result of failed perimeter security. Rather, the breaches were the result of attackers using compromised IDs and passwords from authorized users. Once inside, the attackers methodically explore and exploit internal vulnerabilities (which are generally not protected as well) until they gain access to the information they are seeking. Former Websense CSO Jason Clark recently stated that 80 percent of security spend is going to firewalls, IDS and anti-virus solutions, despite only being effective to 30 percent of threats. The sooner we recognize that our tried and true security techniques are failing us, the sooner we can take a fresh look at preparing for the inevitable. A shift in focus from “if” we have a breach, to “when” we have a breach will pay dividends as a result of better planning and preparation. Preparing for a Data Security Breach Studies show that the appointment of a Chief Information Security Officer and involvement of business continuity management in the incident response process decreased the costs of breaches per compromised record by $10 and $13, respectively. However, the most significant cost reductions for organizations came from having a strong security posture, which reduced the average cost of a data breach by $21 per compromised record, and an incident response plan, which shrunk the cost by $17 per compromised record. These findings emphasize the importance of being prepared for a breach in data security. The starting point in planning for cyber-attacks is having an incident response plan (IRP) in place to ensure appropriate action if security is breached. An effective IRP will address preventative controls, timely detection of potential problems and rapid response to data security breaches. The key components of a well-defined IRP include: Incident Response Team – Select individuals from departments that will be involved when a data security breach occurs, such as Executive Management, Information Technology, Human Resources, Public Relations, Legal, and Operations. Identify the roles each Incident Response Team member will play and ensure they have the authority to execute. Data Classification – The organization’s incident response strategy takes into account the type of data compromised by the breach in determining its response efforts and activities. Categorize data so employees know how to handle various types of information. Levels can include “public/non-classified,” “internal use only” and “confidential.” Then, focus on protecting the most confidential data. Communication Plan – A comprehensive communication plan involves more than maintaining a current contact list of Incident Response Team members, system support personnel and external service providers. The organization should also plan what message it wants to convey and to whom it will communicate internally and externally after a security breach. Include an alternative plan when the normal notification process is pre-empted. Training – Incident preparedness training ensures that all company personnel are ready to handle data breaches before they occur. Incident Response Team members should be well versed in how to appropriately evaluate, respond and manage security incidents. Even if not directly involved in the incident management process, all staff should understand the company’s overall breach response plan so that their actions support, not hinder, breach response efforts. Testing – The IRP should be thoroughly and continuously tested in advance of an actual data breach to help identify process gaps and provide assurance that the plan will be effective in responding to incidents. The Human Element Without a doubt, employees are the weakest link in the security chain. While businesses have done an excellent job in the last decade of improving the process and technology aspects of IT security, they’ve fallen short in training their own employees to defend and protect their company information. The curious and fallible nature of humans demands that companies train and reinforce their employees on these matters. This is an area that companies cannot afford to overlook. “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) complicates matters as employees create new risk by accessing company data with their own technological devices including laptops, smartphones and tablets. Employees must be motivated to think about and understand the security risks and consequences associated with their actions. One Step Ahead It is critical that an organization be aware of the new risks and new ways to address them, allocating time regularly to exploring new threats and new controls. Even with all the proper precautions in place, data breaches will continue to happen. We will always be vulnerable, but how we prepare can help ease the pain when an attack hits. Preventative measures will minimize disruption to customers, operations and productivity, and aggressively managing through the security breach will yield a much more desirable outcome. David Barton is a Managing Director at UHY Advisors, and leads the Internal Audit, Risk and Compliance practice. He is an expert in information security and technology risk and controls. Reach him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter at @ITcontrolsfreak.

When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide.

yes

Digital Rights

Are Data Breaches Inevitable?

yes_statement

"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.

https://www.mcneeslaw.com/data-breaches-ready-inevitable/

Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? - McNees ...

Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials, phony applications, and other clever social engineering tricks. The most important proactive step a company can take to prevent a data breach is to have a comprehensive written information security plan (WISP) in place that identifies what PII the company collects, how and where it is stored, and who has authorized access to it. The plan should be implemented on an enterprise-wide basis (throughout the company, not just in the IT department), and it should be tested periodically to identify and manage any security risks and to ensure that all employees and vendors are complying with the plan. The key elements of an Incident Response Plan. Step two is the creation of an Incident Response Plan, the go-to game plan with detailed action steps in case a data breach happens. Your response plan should be documented in writing and regularly updated and tested. Your Incident Response Plan should address key questions: Who’s on the team? Many people should be at the table, including in-house personnel and outside vendors (including some you may wish to have on retainer in case a data breach occurs). Legal counsel should provide guidance about legal requirements, including applicable notice requirements in your business’s home state and in the states and countries where your customers or clients reside. Public relations personnel, skilled in crisis management, should have draft notification letters (ready in advance of a breach) – that are honest but calm – explaining the breach and the remediation steps you are taking. IT experts must be engaged in advance, standing ready to investigate the cause of the breach and take immediate steps to contain the damage. Who’s in charge? One person must serve as project manager or team leader – the primary decision maker. The team reports to this person, who in turn reports to executives (and the board). The leader must be capable of sharing technical and legal information clearly, consistently, and without jargon. Who needs to be notified? Legal counsel will help you determine if notification is required and who needs to be notified. This will depend on whether you can determine what PII was accessed, whether it was strongly encrypted, and what was done with the PII that was exposed. Should law enforcement be contacted? This is a delicate issue, since the information involved is often proprietary. Legal advice is needed to determine whether law enforcement must be contacted. Businesses should build relationships with law enforcement agencies in advance, so you are not calling the FBI, Secret Service, FTC, state attorneys’ general, or Homeland Security out of the blue. Law enforcement agencies can sometimes advise businesses on data security practices and even assist them with table-top exercises to look for problems and help plan a response to a data breach. What recourse will be offered to victims? After breaches, most companies offer customers some form of remediation, often free credit monitoring. These steps will be determined once your response team determines what PII was accessed, what harm has been caused by the breach, and whether the data was just viewed or duplicated. What’s the budget? Incident Response Plans often rely heavily on outside professionals and vendors to perform the legal analysis, technical and forensic investigations, external and internal communications, credit monitoring, and other steps the plan provides for – all of which is expensive. Increasingly, businesses are purchasing cyber insurance to cover the costs of data breaches. Don’t wait for an emergency! Plan for the inevitable. After a data breach occurs is not the time to be writing a plan and drafting letters. The Incident Response Plan is essential to being ‘crisis-ready’. Bringing on an experienced firm that can help you plan for and implement practical solutions to privacy threats and breaches and advise your business on protecting data is critical. Solutions vary by industry, due to state and federal laws and regulations, but with diligent guidance, businesses can do their utmost to protect their reputations and their customers from data breaches. RELATED PROFESSIONALS Tel: Email: Related Practices Attorney Email Disclaimer If you are not a current client of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, before submitting any information, please read and accept the following terms: Email addresses of our attorneys are not provided as a means for prospective clients to contact our firm or to submit information to us. By clicking "I ACCEPT," you acknowledge that McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already have agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we can represent a party in a manner adverse to you even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in that matter. ALFA International McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is a member of the ALFA International legal network. The ALFA network is comprised of 125 law firms with nearly 300 offices throughout the United States and around the World. The 85 U.S. firms and 40 international members employ over 8,000 lawyers and 10,000 legal support staff. As an ALFA member, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is able to draw upon the vast resources of the network’s membership to better serve its clients. ALFA affiliation also facilitates and expedites the retention of outstanding counsel in unfamiliar jurisdictions, another significant client benefit. More information about the ALFA legal network can be found at www.alfainternational.com. Best Places to Work in PA This survey, study and award program is intended to identify the best places of employment in Pennsylvania for the benefit of the Commonwealth, its workforce and businesses. The "100 Best Places to Work in PA" program is made up of 50 medium-sized companies (50 to 250 employees) and 50 large-sized companies (251+ employees). After a two-part assessment process designed to gather detailed data about each company, ModernThink, LLC, a workplace excellence consulting firm, determines what companies make the final list. Best Companies coordinates the process and ModernThink evaluates all surveys submitted by companies. McNees has been named to the list of Best Places to Work in PA since 2006.

Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials,

yes

Digital Rights

Are Data Breaches Inevitable?

no_statement

"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.

https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/

The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX

The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.

Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html

Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation

TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.

The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.

yes

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Florida_panther/index.html

Florida panther

Panthers have more in common with common house cats than with lions or tigers. A New Chapter in Saving Florida Panthers Saving Florida Panthers has long been a shared goal between the Center and the Florida Panther Society. With the Society winding down, we're honored that they've chosen us to carry on this important work to protect and conserve one of the most awe-inspiring wild cats on the continent. Learn more. SAVING THE FLORIDA PANTHER A reserved, stealthy predator of enormous physical grace and power, the Florida panther is one of the most majestic large felines in the wild. While jaguars roamed as far east as Louisiana, and pumas were widespread from the East to the West coasts, today the Florida panther is the only large feline remaining in the Southeast, and it's separated from western puma populations by more than 1,000 miles. Once found throughout the southeast United States, the Florida panther now occupies only a small area of South Florida, about 5 percent of its former range, and it numbers just 100 to 120 individual cats. BACKGROUND By far the greatest threats to Florida panthers are habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation — all driven by Florida's burgeoning human population and the developments and highways that accommodate it. Without room to roam, male Florida panthers clash, often with fatal consequences; with its restricted size and absolute isolation, the panther population remains particularly vulnerable to fatal diseases and parasites. Roads, besides slashing through precious panther habitat, also directly kill the great cats through vehicle collisions. But Florida development and road-building can only increase as humans expand; already, numerous new towns are planned to be built inland from the state's southwest coast. OUR CAMPAIGN For the Florida panther to survive — much less recover — it needs federally protected critical habitat, as well as reintroductions to additional habitats in Florida and the Southeast. The Center petitioned for the protection of roughly 3 million acres of critical habitat in 2009, but early the next year, the Obama administration denied our petition — so we and four allies sued, and when our lawsuit was struck down, we appealed. In 2011 we also petitioned to reintroduce the panther in and around the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southern Georgia and northern Florida. That petition was denied, but we won't give up on earning this species the room it needs to roam and recover, and we've won several victories defening its habitat, such as a 2014 settlement to significantly curtail damaging off-road vehicle use in Big Cypress National Preserve, where the panther roams. We took a many actions in defense of the Florida panther over the next six years, from our 2020 letter (with allies) to the Florida governor about permanently protecting Big Cypress from further oil-exploration activities, to our 2017 lawsuit seeking measures to protect this cat and other endangered species from toxic pesticides. Get the latest on our work for biodiversity and learn how to help in our free weekly e-newsletter.

Panthers have more in common with common house cats than with lions or tigers. A New Chapter in Saving Florida Panthers Saving Florida Panthers has long been a shared goal between the Center and the Florida Panther Society. With the Society winding down, we're honored that they've chosen us to carry on this important work to protect and conserve one of the most awe-inspiring wild cats on the continent. Learn more. SAVING THE FLORIDA PANTHER A reserved, stealthy predator of enormous physical grace and power, the Florida panther is one of the most majestic large felines in the wild. While jaguars roamed as far east as Louisiana, and pumas were widespread from the East to the West coasts, today the Florida panther is the only large feline remaining in the Southeast, and it's separated from western puma populations by more than 1,000 miles. Once found throughout the southeast United States, the Florida panther now occupies only a small area of South Florida, about 5 percent of its former range, and it numbers just 100 to 120 individual cats. BACKGROUND By far the greatest threats to Florida panthers are habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation — all driven by Florida's burgeoning human population and the developments and highways that accommodate it. Without room to roam, male Florida panthers clash, often with fatal consequences; with its restricted size and absolute isolation, the panther population remains particularly vulnerable to fatal diseases and parasites. Roads, besides slashing through precious panther habitat, also directly kill the great cats through vehicle collisions. But Florida development and road-building can only increase as humans expand; already, numerous new towns are planned to be built inland from the state's southwest coast. OUR CAMPAIGN For the Florida panther to survive — much less recover — it needs federally protected critical habitat, as well as reintroductions to additional habitats in Florida and the Southeast.

yes

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16043682

Once rare, Florida panthers are rebounding

Once rare, Florida panthers are rebounding In recent years, Florida panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades. It's a resurgence that has created problems when the big cats interact, or collide, with civilization. As urban sprawl creeps further into nature, human-panther encounters are becoming more common. David Shindle / AP Dec. 5, 2006, 12:45 AM UTC / Source: The Associated Press Schoolteacher Theresa Ryan sensed an eerie presence behind her as she sat at a picnic table at her boyfriend’s rural home. Then she heard the breathing. “I turned around and there was a panther 15 feet away. We were face to face,” she said. “It had no place to go except at me or by me.” She flailed her arms and screamed to scare the cat. “It just sauntered away. No hurry. It was never afraid,” she said. “It was very freaky.” For decades, such encounters with Florida panthers were extraordinarily rare, like the endangered animals themselves. But in recent years, panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades, prompting officials to warn residents to be aware of the cats and to keep their children close at dusk and dawn. The big cats have since killed emus from a zoo, and goats and dogs from rural back yards. Documented panther attacks on livestock jumped from two in 2004 to six so far this year, and 10 panthers have been killed on highways this year alone. Habitat surrounded But biologists fear the increased panther encounters may be short-lived as the cats’ remaining habitat — 2.5 million acres in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park and a few strands of wild state land — becomes surrounded by some of the fastest-growing areas in the nation. In this Jan. 2002 photo released by the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission a Florida panther kitten is seen at the Florida Panther Wildlife refuge, Fla. As urban sprawl creeps further into nature, human-panther encounters are becoming more common. Panthers and humans are continuously competing for space and according to scientists, people just might prevail, which would ultimately mean the extinction for the big cats. (AP Photo/Mark Lotz, Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission)Mark Lotz / FLORIDA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION CO “The way we’re building, we’re going to push the panthers out,” said biologist Larry Richardson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “My big concern is the panther will become a zoo relic.” He added: “If we build out even half the potential of what the state says we can, forget about the panthers.” Florida panthers, which can weigh up to 155 pounds, are one of several subspecies of cougar in the United States and the last type still roaming east of the Mississippi. Thousands of these panthers once ranged throughout the Southeast. By the 1950s, the panther had been hunted to near extinction, leading to their eventual protection, beginning in the 1970s, under the federal Endangered Species Act. But continued loss of habitat caused its numbers to dwindle to about 30 as recently as the mid-’90s. Those that remained showed signs of inbreeding and disease. A deeper gene pool It was not until wildlife biologists introduced eight female Texas cougars in 1995 that the gene pool began to broaden and the numbers started creeping back up. Even that small increase in population has heightened the threat to suburban back yards, since each male cat can range up to 200 miles. At a recent town hall meeting in Collier County, state and federal officials gave residents safety tips, even though there has never been a documented attack on a human in Florida. The tips included trimming scrub from property to remove food sources that attract deer, the panther’s favorite prey, and to deprive the big cats of places where they can hide and stalk. Among the other advice: Don’t let children play outside in known panther areas at twilight, when the cats are most likely to feed. That wasn’t what everyone wanted to hear. “I personally want humans to stay on top of the food chain,” said Barbara Jean Powell of the Everglades Coordinating Council, an umbrella group of sportsmen associations that strongly supports private property rights. Ryan’s close encounter with a wild animal took place last month in a hamlet inside Big Cypress National Preserve. Wildlife experts are not convinced she saw a Florida panther and say it may have been a bobcat. But the schoolteacher was shaken: “We don’t need them here. This animal does not need to be protected anymore.” However, Elizabeth Fleming with Defenders of Wildlife said that people are the problem and that state and federal governments aren’t doing enough to protect panther habitat from urban sprawl, in part because of a lack of money to acquire land. Federal funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to drop by 20 percent in 2008. “It’s death by a thousand cuts,” she said. “The Endangered Species Act wasn’t set up to stop development, but the panther has extremely large territorial requirements. If that area becomes suburbanized, it doesn’t take much to see that there won’t be any more panthers.” Darrell Land, lead panther biologist for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, said that day is nearing fast. “We’ve hit the slippery slope and we’re closing in on the bottom,” Land said. “We’re all getting frustrated with congestion and high cost of housing, but we’ve got to achieve a balance. We simply cannot afford to take over every square foot of Florida and put a house on it.”

Once rare, Florida panthers are rebounding In recent years, Florida panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades. It's a resurgence that has created problems when the big cats interact, or collide, with civilization. As urban sprawl creeps further into nature, human-panther encounters are becoming more common. David Shindle / AP Dec. 5, 2006, 12:45 AM UTC / Source: The Associated Press Schoolteacher Theresa Ryan sensed an eerie presence behind her as she sat at a picnic table at her boyfriend’s rural home. Then she heard the breathing. “I turned around and there was a panther 15 feet away. We were face to face,” she said. “It had no place to go except at me or by me.” She flailed her arms and screamed to scare the cat. “It just sauntered away. No hurry. It was never afraid,” she said. “It was very freaky.” For decades, such encounters with Florida panthers were extraordinarily rare, like the endangered animals themselves. But in recent years, panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades, prompting officials to warn residents to be aware of the cats and to keep their children close at dusk and dawn. The big cats have since killed emus from a zoo, and goats and dogs from rural back yards. Documented panther attacks on livestock jumped from two in 2004 to six so far this year, and 10 panthers have been killed on highways this year alone. Habitat surrounded But biologists fear the increased panther encounters may be short-lived as the cats’ remaining habitat — 2.5 million acres in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park and a few strands of wild state land — becomes surrounded by some of the fastest-growing areas in the nation.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/threatened-species-science-genetic-rescue-180963040/

Threatened Species? Science to the (Genetic) Rescue! | Science ...

Threatened Species? Science to the (Genetic) Rescue! This still-controversial conservation technique will never be a species’ panacea. But it might provide a crucial stop-gap Laura Poppick April 27, 2017 Roughly 70 pink pigeons exist in captivity around the world, including this one at the San Diego Zoo. Dick Daniels Like the doomed passenger pigeon in 1914, the pink pigeon of Mauritius is standing on the edge of a precipice. After watching all of its other pigeon cousins on this remote island go extinct—including the dodo, its infamous island-mate last seen in 1662—this rosy-hued bird is now looking down the dark gullet of extinction itself. After yo-yo’ing down to a population of just around nine individuals in the 1990s, the studly birds are back up to a population of about 400 today. But that number is still small enough to leave them dangerously vulnerable. The pink pigeon’s lack of genetic diversity has left it increasingly susceptible to a parasite-causing disease called trichomonosis, which kills more than half of its chicks and limits population growth. Fortunately, it isn't 1662 anymore. Today, an evolving conservation tool could help pull these birds back from the brink of extinction: genetic rescue. It works by adding genetic diversity to these kinds of precariously numbered populations—by introducing specific individuals or, potentially, by someday directly editing their genes. If it works, this pigeon’s future may once again be as rosy as its plumage. “We want to try to give them the tools to fight this disease,” says Camilla Ryan, a graduate student who studies the Mauritius pigeon with genomics researcher Matt Clark at England’s Earlham University. “The birds don’t have the numbers or potentially the genetic diversity to deal with the disease themselves.” Clark and Ryan are hoping to pull this population back on its feet by pinpointing the genes that make these birds so vulnerable to in the first place. Then, they’ll sample captive pink pigeons in zoos and parks around the world in search of genes better suited to fight the disease, with the ultimate goal of potentially mating these with the wild population. The team has already generated genetic data from 180 different pink pigeons. Still, the pair remain cautious in implementing a technique that has brewed controversy ever since it started becoming more readily implemented in the 1990s, in hallmark cases of rescuing Florida panthers and Illinois prairie chickens. They aren’t alone: Many conservationists argue that the approach could create unforeseen problems for species at risk, and that it doesn't resolve the underlying problems that push so many species to the brink of extinction, including habitat loss due to human development. But as humans continue to encroach on wild habitats and alter global climate patterns, the situation for many species has become more dire. Now, many researchers are turning to genetic rescue this as a viable tool to pull these most vulnerable species from the brink of extinction. In the more distant future, some scientists think we might be able to go further, genetically modifying animals to become better suited to their rapidly changing environments. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. For now, scientists are focused on sharpening their genomics tools. When populations like the pink pigeon’s shrink down to the double or even single digits, they experience something called inbreeding depression. Essentially, that means they have less diversity in their gene pool, which makes it harder for them to beat challenges in their environment. Signs of this have been found in numerous species, including an isolated population of wolves in Michigan where individuals started to develop an unusual arched posture and stubby tails—possible indicators of poor health. Now, Ryan and Clark are scouring historic tissue samples from five museums across Europe to look for genes that older pink pigeons may have once had to fight off disease before inbreeding depression took hold. The team will then look for captive birds that may have maintained these historic helpful genes to mate them with the wild population. Each genotype you introduce into the existing population comes with its own pros and cons. So the team must be careful not to introduce new problems into the wild birds’ immune systems, says Clark. “You could end up breeding a population that is very successful at fighting off Trichomonas, but what you have done is accidentally decreased the amount of diversity in the immune system,” says Clark. If that’s the case, he adds, a new disease that they weren’t prepared for could theoretically hit and wipe out the entire population. Mating captive birds with wild birds also runs the risk of introducing genes that the captive birds had evolved to survive in captivity, weakening the wild bird’s ability to survive in the wild. “By trying to help them out, you’ve made it worse,” Clark says. This threat, called outbreeding depression, raises hackles amongst conservation biologists and is a primary argument against using genetic rescue more widely. The Florida panther is a hallmark of how genetic rescue can help pull species from the brink of extinction. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yet despite these risks, several success stories have shown that genetic rescue can work. One of the major success stories conservationists point to is the Florida panther. This large, iconic cat once lurked through the southeastern U.S in large numbers, enjoying its status as top predator and vital member of the ecosystem. But by the 1970s, habitat loss and hunting had shrunk the population to between 12 and 20 adults. Not only were their numbers dismal, but almost all of the male panthers showed signs of inbreeding depression, including undescended testicles, kinked tails and low sperm counts. Conservationists didn’t want to see this cat—which helped keep populations of white-tailed deer, wild hog, and other prey animals in check—go extinct. So in 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked with a team of researchers to transfer eight female mountain lions from Texas to mate with the Florida panthers. They hoped the mountain lions, which are a subspecies of the panther, would revitalize the gene pool and boost the population size. Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University, says he had his doubts at first. If you were trying to rescue a species that had become so rare that it showed genetic damage, he believed, then it was already too late to save them. Many of his colleagues agreed. “You were treating the symptom rather than the cause,” Pimm says, citing habitat loss as the major cause in this case. But the researchers went ahead, and mated the panthers and the mountain lions. Amazingly, their efforts seemed to work. The panther population grew and the next generation appeared free of kinked tails, undescended tentacles, and other signs of inbreeding. “All of those things disappeared,” says Pimm. Ten years later, Pimm ran a follow-up study showing they had sustained a growing population free of these signs of inbreeding depression. “It was fast, it was a very effective process,” he says now. Other success stories popped up in the 1990s. Great prairie chicken populations grew for the first time in decades (though more recent studies question the role of genetic rescue in this success), along with the Swedish adder, a venomous snake that had suffered from inbreeding. Today, Pimm has changed his tune: He now believes genetic rescue can be an excellent tool in a conservationist’s toolbox, and is considering using it to protect other top predators, including lions in Africa. Florida panthers have become an icon of genetic rescue success. Michaelstone428 As researchers around the world consider implementing genetic rescue, they must better understand how the risk of outbreeding depression could differ from species to species. Unfortunately, because genetic rescue has been so controversial, few cases exist that could offer this information. Even the success stories of the panthers, chickens and adders hold limited information regarding how the mechanism might transfer from one species to another, says Andrew Whiteley, a conservation genomics researcher at the University of Montana. That’s partly because these cases weren’t done systematically—they were more of a last-ditch effort to save a critically endangered species. “Those were done in response to a pressing management concern, they weren’t really done to test the concept of genetic rescue in an experimentally rigorous way,” says Whiteley. “So those uncertainties are going to remain.” Working to fill those knowledge gaps, Whitely has been conducting experiments with brook trout—a species easier to experimentally study than large predators—in which his team has moved fish into four different isolated populations and introduced fish from elsewhere to mate with them. Preliminary results suggest that the first round of matings were successful, but the real measure of success will come with the second generation’s ability to survive and reproduce—this is where symptoms of outbreeding depression tend to arise. He plans to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the second generation’s ability to survive and reproduce, building a so-called pedigree to see how genes flow through the system. “And ultimately dig in with genomics to understand at the genome level what happened when this pulse of gene flow entered this small population,” says Whiteley. “Those are the types of data we need to be able to make solid recommendations.” If the traditional form of genetic rescue is considered controversial, a newly developing iteration will like start a far louder hullabaloo. Today, biologists are considering literal tinkering with animal genomes, by genetically engineering them to have certain traits. “We are not at the stage of doing any rescuing yet, we are just setting the stage for doing that in the future if it will work out,” says Fleischer. Oliver Ryder, director of Conservation Genetics at San Diego Zoo Global, says these techniques could someday prove invaluable, but that broader discussions about the ethics and logistics would need to come first. Within those discussions, researchers would need to weigh the risks associated with each case—including the risk that the efforts simply wouldn’t work. “In spite of the efforts, the pathogen would find a way around the solution or the engineering,” says Ryder, “so all of the effort would not be sufficient to keep the species from going extinct.” Ryder is involved in a broader effort to develop yet another genetic rescue approach, and is interested in using it to save the Northern White Rhino. The technique, which is still years away, would use stem cell technology to produce eggs and sperm from frozen Northern White Rhinos cells stored at the San Diego Zoo Global. His team is also looking into using frozen sperm to create embryos from eggs obtained either from the last living females or through stem cell techniques. They would then theoretically transfer embryos into closely related rhinos, who would serve as surrogates. This rhino is the perfect candidate for such an approach, in part because there are only three of these individuals left that are all unable to breed naturally, Ryder says. “The Northern White Rhino is functionally extinct,” says Ryder. “The only way to keep it from going extinct would be to genetically rescue it using advanced genetic and reproductive technologies.” For now, researchers generally agree that traditional genetic rescue without genetic modification offers the most immediate conservation solution. However, it will never be the end-all solution to saving degrading populations. Instead, it offers a stop-gap opportunity to deal other overlying issues like reducing isolation and improving habitat, says Chris Funk, a researcher at Colorado State University who has conducted studies on Trinidadian guppies to track when and how outbreeding depression may arise. Funk, like Pimm, at first called himself a skeptic—not because he didn’t believe genetic rescue could work, but because he considered himself a purist when it came to conservation. But as more and more populations become isolated and threatened by increasing human pressures and development, he says he has come to realize that some compromises may be necessary. “There is accumulating evidence that it can work in a lot of circumstances,” says Funk. “We are not going to have the luxury to have this purist attitude,” he continues. “If we want these populations on the landscape, we are going to have to use genetic rescue to keep them from going extinct.”

One of the major success stories conservationists point to is the Florida panther. This large, iconic cat once lurked through the southeastern U.S in large numbers, enjoying its status as top predator and vital member of the ecosystem. But by the 1970s, habitat loss and hunting had shrunk the population to between 12 and 20 adults. Not only were their numbers dismal, but almost all of the male panthers showed signs of inbreeding depression, including undescended testicles, kinked tails and low sperm counts. Conservationists didn’t want to see this cat—which helped keep populations of white-tailed deer, wild hog, and other prey animals in check—go extinct. So in 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked with a team of researchers to transfer eight female mountain lions from Texas to mate with the Florida panthers. They hoped the mountain lions, which are a subspecies of the panther, would revitalize the gene pool and boost the population size. Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University, says he had his doubts at first. If you were trying to rescue a species that had become so rare that it showed genetic damage, he believed, then it was already too late to save them. Many of his colleagues agreed. “You were treating the symptom rather than the cause,” Pimm says, citing habitat loss as the major cause in this case. But the researchers went ahead, and mated the panthers and the mountain lions. Amazingly, their efforts seemed to work. The panther population grew and the next generation appeared free of kinked tails, undescended tentacles, and other signs of inbreeding. “All of those things disappeared,” says Pimm. Ten years later, Pimm ran a follow-up study showing they had sustained a growing population free of these signs of inbreeding depression. “It was fast, it was a very effective process,” he says now. Other success stories popped up in the 1990s.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://bigcatrescue.org/florida-panther-facts/

Florida Panther Facts

Florida Panther Facts Protect the Florida Panther or Lose Her Forever What is the Species? Puma concolor coryi. The Florida Panther is a unique subspecies of cougar that has adapted to the subtropical environment of Florida. Schoolchildren picked the panther as the state animal in 1981. This large charismatic umbrella species is the mascot for dozens of schools across the state and tens of thousands of residents have paid a premium for a specialty “Protect the Panther” Florida license plate, sold to pay for the state’s panther research. How Many Panthers Are Left? In 2010, the population had grown from about 25 adults in 1995 to roughly 100. In 2015 the state estimated their population to be 100 -180. In 2017, the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission updated the population estimate to between 120 – 230 panthers still remaining in Florida, making this one of the rarest and endangered mammals in the world. Even at their best estimates, 230 panthers are not a sustainable population size. The Florida panther is currently listed as endangered and is protected under the Endangered Species Act. Where is their Habitat & Range? The Florida panther is mostly confined to Southwest Florida, usually in pinelands, hardwood hammocks, and mixed swamp forests. Adult males may range over an area of 200 square miles, while females range over a 70 to 80 square mile area. Florida panthers are very solitary animals. An adult maintains a home range to live, hunt and, if female, raise its young alone. A male panther’s home range is very large and averages 275 square miles and overlaps with the smaller home ranges of females. Panthers maintain boundaries by marking with scents. They rarely fight over territory. The Florida Panther is an umbrella species, which means they are the heart of the ecological community within their habitat. Protecting panthers in Florida indirectly conserves other threatened and endangered wildlife in the state. General: Panthers are most active at dusk and dawn, they can travel 15-20 miles a day, often moving in a zig-zag pattern, though they tend to rest during the daytime, travel & hunt during the cooler hours of the night. Panthers can swim and will cross wide bodies of water. They have a keen sense of smell and a field of vision of 130 degrees, they have excellent depth perception but lack the panoramic view that deer have. They can run up to 35 mph but only for a few hundred yards, their preferred method of hunting is to creep up as close to their prey as possible and launch a short spring attack. Panthers do become used to man-made noises and frequently crossroads. They are attracted to woodland fires and may stay near burned sites for days as deer and other prey are drawn to new vegetation. When humans approach an area they will either be still, disappear, or attempt to circle behind. Panthers can live up to between 12-15 years in the wild. A male can measure 7-8 feet from the nose to tail tip and weigh 100-160 lbs. Females are about 6 feet in length and weigh between 60-100 lbs. The start of 2019 brought exciting news, with a third female panther documented north of the Caloosahatchee River! Having females move north of the river is one of the goals in the panther recovery plan and brings promise for the future of the sub-species. What Kind of Hunter is the Panther? Efficient is the word. Adult male panthers weigh up to 150 pounds and can measure almost 7 feet long from the nose to the tip of the tail. Females are smaller, rarely weighing more than 100 pounds. Panthers are built to hunt live prey. Deer and wild hogs are their preferred food, but, when these are not available panthers will eat raccoons, armadillos, snakes and even alligators. Interestingly, panthers eating a diet of small animals are not as healthy as those with plenty of deer to hunt. While they are good sprinters, panthers rarely chase prey for long distances. Instead, prey is singled out, stalked and ambushed. What are the Threats? Road kills, habitat loss, and development in panther range continue to be threats. Florida panthers are still inching back from the brink of extinction. The construction of new houses, roads, and airports in Southwest Florida continue to squeeze the panthers out and fragment their habitat, increasing the likelihood that cats will be hit by cars. Humans are one of the panther’s greatest threats. This also means that we can directly affect the panther’s future. It’s sad to say that Florida panthers are killed by cars and trucks, particularly on State Road 29 and Alligator Alley (I-75), and – although it is against the law – hunters also still shoot panthers occasionally. In 2016 a record 34 Florida panthers were killed by vehicle collisions. Road kills took 23 panthers in 2017 and as of April 2018, 14 dead panthers have been discovered 2018. Florida panthers have an unusually large number of health problems. Most are related to poor habitat conditions and genetic defects. Around the Everglades, panthers have been contaminated with mercury (at least 1 has died from mercury poisoning) by eating raccoons high in mercury, which passes through the aquatic food chain. The mercury’s origin is being debated and is uncertain. Panther habitat is being lost at a rate of about 1 to 2% annually and panther range counties are among the fastest-growing areas in the nation. What is being done? Plans to save the panthers focus on 3 areas of action. First, additional habitat must be secured and enhanced. Second, programs are underway to breed panthers in captivity for later release back in the wild. Third, scientists are exploring ways to increase the genetic variability of panthers through cross-breeding with closely related subspecies. The panther needs large wilderness areas for its survival. Federally listed as endangered since 1967, the Florida panther was once down to 25 individuals. These few animals are threatened by further habitat loss, collisions with cars, the ill effects of inbreeding, and high levels of mercury in their prey. Many of the remaining panthers live in or near Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. The National Park Service is cooperating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Florida Department of Natural Resources, and other organizations to try to bring about the recovery of the Florida panther. Efforts are centered on research, captive breeding, and public education. Radio-collaring of several panthers has shown what areas and habitat types they use. Other studies have identified the principal prey — white-tailed deer. Publicity has made the public more aware of the panther’s plight and alerted people to watch out for them on the highway. But with the numbers so low and suitable habitat in south Florida so restricted, captive breeding and re-establishment in other areas will be crucial for turning the population decline around. Are There Any Refuges? The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 includes measures to preserve ecosystems for endangered species, perpetuate migratory bird species, preserve natural diversity, and create a public appreciation for wildlife protection. The refuge system is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is one of the 58 refuges established under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. The refuge area has long been known as an important Florida Panther habitat. Several female panthers have had litters and raised kittens on the refuge in recent years. The Florida Panther is an umbrella species, which means they are the heart of the ecological community within their habitat. Protecting panthers in Florida indirectly conserves other threatened and endangered wildlife in the state. The Florida Panther Refuge provides habitat for a total of 126 bird species, 46 species of reptiles and amphibians, 22 species of mammals and a large variety of fish. Closed areas in the refuge protect habitat for 24 species of endangered, threatened or plant & animal species of special concern status. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission monitors panther activity using radio telemetry collars. They fly three times a week to aerially locate each radio-collared panther. These techniques provide vital information to scientists. The swamps and pinelands panthers occupy also provide us with clean air and water, as well as thousands of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and plants. “The Florida panther (Puma concolor) is one of the rarest large mammals in the United States. Historically, the panther was distributed from eastern Texas or western Louisiana and the lower Mississippi River Valley, east through the southeastern United States including all of Florida (Young and Goldman 1946). Although occasional sightings and signs were reported throughout the rural southeast between 1950 and 1980, the only confirmed panther population was found in south Florida (Anderson 1983). Geographic isolation of the Florida panther, combined with habitat loss, population decline and associated inbreeding, resulted in significant loss of genetic variability and decline in the overall health of the population. To restore genetic variability, eight female Texas panthers were released in strategic locations within south Florida in 1995. Due to the genetic augmentation, the population grew from less than 50 panthers in 1995 to the current population of 80-100. All offspring of the Texas panthers are considered to be Florida panthers. The panther is listed as endangered under both the Endangered Species Act and Florida law. Increased development into panther habitat has heightened the potential for human-panther interactions, thereby raising public safety awareness issues. Due to the panther’s potential for extinction, conflicts with humans raise issues that require careful consideration and action such that the intent and ability to conserve the species is unaltered while at the same time the safety of the public remains paramount.” Refuge Location The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge lies 20 miles east of Naples, Florida. Interstate 75 parallels the south boundary; State Road 29 parallels the east boundary. The Mission of the Panther Refuge To conserve and manage lands and waters in concert with other agency efforts within the Big Cypress Watershed, primarily for the Florida Panther, other endangered and threatened species, natural diversity, and cultural resources for the benefit of the American people. Additional Research: In 1989, data collected from 29 radio-collared panthers indicated that the population was losing genetic diversity at a rate of three to seven percent yearly. Researchers believed that the gene pool would continue to erode even if the population stabilized, leading to extinction within 40 years. Three years later, with the health of the population continuing to decline, biologists made a controversial decision. In an effort to increase genetic diversity, wildlife managers introduced several female Texas cougars — the closest remaining cougar population that had historically shared Florida panther range — into the Florida panther population in 1995. Several hybrid litters have since been produced, and the introduction seems to have corrected some of the problems experts generally attribute to inbreeding. Experts are still debating the role of the Texas cougars in panther recovery. Despite the success of this effort, panthers are still at great risk of extinction. Conserving the panther will require aggressive protections for remaining wild lands in south Florida as well as conservation efforts on private lands. Another major conservation challenge for the panther is reestablishing the species in other portions of its historic range. Field studies have indicated an adequate prey base and appropriate habitat in some areas of northern Florida. While there is widespread popular support for panther reintroduction in Florida, some people are still concerned about introducing the cat to new areas, fearing the panther will bring with it restrictions on private property uses, potential damage to livestock and pets, and a possible threat to human safety. Such concerns often surround recovery efforts for large carnivores, but with proper assurances to address depredation claims and any potential “problem” animals, reintroduction projects could prove a positive step towards recovering the Florida panther. What You Can Do To Save The Panther? Are you a Florida resident? Slow down when you’re driving and support panther conservation efforts by buying a Protect the Florida Panther license plate. Know what to do if you encounter a panther in the wild; i.e. make yourself appear larger, avoid crouching or bending over, do not run, give the panther an easy way to escape. Become informed by researching materials from credible sources which take a scientific approach. Don’t be an “Island of Knowledge”. Teach others what you have learned and correct myths about the Florida Panther that are repeated all too often. Visit and learn from websites such as www.floridapanther.org, www.fws.gov/floridapanther, and bigcatrescue.org Help others become educated about the nature and habits of the panther and its value as an important part of the balance of nature. Support wilderness land acquisition and the public and private land management practices which emphasize biodiversity and balance. Don’t be silent, join in and support the environmental education process to raise the consciousness of the community. You can do this by individual effort and/or by joining with others in various ways to get the job done. Do a school project on the Florida panther. Make wildlife a family affair. Display panther bumper stickers. Visit national and state parks where the panther lives. Watch TV programs about endangered species. Attend public meetings on panther issues. The decisions that affect endangered species are made in these forums. Make sure your voice is heard. Learn more about the threats facing the Florida Panther and take action here. Speak out every chance you get. Awareness is half the battle. Tell everyone you can about the plight of the panther. As with most conservation issues, the struggle of the panther goes beyond the question of whether it is worth saving this particular species. If our wilderness can’t support panthers, then many other less visible species also will perish. Let’s all do what we can to ensure that future generations will know this beautiful animal and the wilderness it symbolizes. Note: Much of the information and research on this site is courtesy of both the Florida Panther Net (http://www.panther.state.fl.us/) and The Panther Society. Our deep felt thanks goes to them for their tireless efforts to ensure the panther’s survival by educating us all. Monica Spires there is no difference… a cougar is also called a panther and also called a mountain screamer… but there is NO black Panters! it would be a Black Jaguar or Leopard.. http://bigcatrescue.org/cougar-facts/ naveed Panther is a generic term and does not apply to a single species. It may refer to a lion – panthera leo – Africa and Asia a tiger – panthera tigris – Asia … Panthers live in Asia, America, and Africa. To be a bit more specific, they are … Sammy Lacks I live in south east North Carolina and over the years I have heard many stories by people saying they saw a large long tailed cat. We haven t had Panthers living here in many years but what s even more odd is all of these sitings were of they said , of a large long tailed ” black ” cat. This never made sense to me because the only black cat is the black leapard indigenous to Asia and none have roamed here luckily. I can t imagine why so many said the same description. charles miller I was driving a semi one night around Bartow Florida, I started over a concrete bridge (small) and witnessed a totally black Jaguar, or whatever you want to call them, he was walking along the the bridge in the path designed for bikes and walkers, it was around 3am, he did not flinch as I went by, and I looked in my mirror and again he did not flinch. He was just walking along, he was way, way to big have been a cat, I was stunned. For what I could see he was all black, no other colors, and looked very healthy indeed. this was in a very rural area of central Fl. Martha Jackson Monty medlin I live in North Carolina. In the Sandhills where I call home, a traditional honey colored cougar was seen by myself and several of my neighbors. It was taller than the bumper on my Ford Ranger truck and from nose to tip of tail was as long as trucks width. This was verified by county animal control. When I lived in the Mountains there was a black one almost same size that came nightly to eat out of scrap pile I baited wild hogs with. The black ones just have messed genetics. There is no way possible the government can say without doubt that they were all killed out years ago. I am sure there were a few that escaped the hunters. Steven Back Steve jones Got one in my yard. I live in N. Naples.3acres. Seen him 3 times now. Also caught him on a security camera last night. So cool. But reading this article makes me concerned for him/her. I am going to see what I can do to possibly relocate him. Too many houses and traffic. I have lots of rabbits in the yard. That’s probably why he has been around. Deer are scarce. Poor fella Kimi They have been seen in southeast Georgia. I have seen and heard many, growing up in the country. They come through one or two times a year.They are moving through right now. One was seen down the road from my house and my mom had one in her yard last night. It would be interesting if they did research here to see if their population is larger than they think. Ariana Losco Steven Last Saturday night right at dusk I had a cat cross the road In front of me on Raleigh Drive in Palm Bay FL. I have no idea what it was but it was about the size of a medium sized dog (45 lbs or so) the markings were kind of like a calico cat. Looking at pics of bob cats and Florida panther Cubs I think I saw a panther cub. Idk ??‍♂️ but it was very cool to see!

Instead, prey is singled out, stalked and ambushed. What are the Threats? Road kills, habitat loss, and development in panther range continue to be threats. Florida panthers are still inching back from the brink of extinction. The construction of new houses, roads, and airports in Southwest Florida continue to squeeze the panthers out and fragment their habitat, increasing the likelihood that cats will be hit by cars. Humans are one of the panther’s greatest threats. This also means that we can directly affect the panther’s future. It’s sad to say that Florida panthers are killed by cars and trucks, particularly on State Road 29 and Alligator Alley (I-75), and – although it is against the law – hunters also still shoot panthers occasionally. In 2016 a record 34 Florida panthers were killed by vehicle collisions. Road kills took 23 panthers in 2017 and as of April 2018, 14 dead panthers have been discovered 2018. Florida panthers have an unusually large number of health problems. Most are related to poor habitat conditions and genetic defects. Around the Everglades, panthers have been contaminated with mercury (at least 1 has died from mercury poisoning) by eating raccoons high in mercury, which passes through the aquatic food chain. The mercury’s origin is being debated and is uncertain. Panther habitat is being lost at a rate of about 1 to 2% annually and panther range counties are among the fastest-growing areas in the nation. What is being done? Plans to save the panthers focus on 3 areas of action. First, additional habitat must be secured and enhanced. Second, programs are underway to breed panthers in captivity for later release back in the wild. Third, scientists are exploring ways to increase the genetic variability of panthers through cross-breeding with closely related subspecies. The panther needs large wilderness areas for its survival.

yes

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://lithub.com/the-extreme-move-that-saved-florida-panthers-from-extinction/

The Extreme Move That Saved Florida Panthers From Extinction ...

The Extreme Move That Saved Florida Panthers From Extinction Craig Pittman on a Pivotal Moment for a Majestic Species In 1975, the Dallas Cowboys football team was losing to the Minnesota Vikings in a divisional playoff when the Cowboys’ quarterback, Roger Staubach, begged for divine intervention. With 24 seconds left in the game, he dropped back, launched a desperate 50-yard spiral downfield and then mut­tered a “Hail Mary” prayer as he watched it fly. The ball found its target, receiver Drew Pearson, who caught it just inside the five-yard line and ran it into the end zone for a touchdown. Thus the Cowboys beat the Vikings and the phrase “Hail Mary pass” entered America’s pop culture lexicon. “I could have said ‘Our Father’ or ‘Glory be,’” Staubach said years later. “But I don’t think ‘Our Father’ would have carried on.” In 1992, Florida’s panthers needed a Hail Mary pass. The panther experts gathered once again at White Oak Plan­tation. The owner had installed a bar, a classic one from Chicago that was rumored to have come from Al Capone’s favorite gin joint. It was on the same hall as the bowling alley. Right next to the bar and the bowling alley was a lecture hall with expen­sive wood paneling and a set of tables spread around. The clock was ticking down to zero. The game was nearly over. That’s where the experts now congregated, although they probably felt more like sitting in the bar and drowning their sorrows. As they filed into the lecture hall at White Oak on Octo­ber 21, 1992, they each wore a grim look. Captive breeding had failed. The kittens selected as having the best genetic back­ground turned out to be just as messed up as the others. Pan­thers were teetering on the brink of extinction and the bright minds studying the problem had not only failed to save them, but had actually made things worse. Outside the weather was gorgeous. The chance of rain was zero. The high temperature was a cool (for Florida) 66 de­grees, meaning no mosquitoes to bother you on a nature hike. But inside? Nothing but storm clouds. The clock was ticking down to zero. The game was nearly over. Given the chance to sit anywhere in the room, everyone di­vided into their own tribes: biologists at one table, bureaucrats at another, computer geeks at a third and so on. The tension felt palpable, and much of it centered on wildlife biologist David Maehr. Deb Jansen and the other members of the National Park Ser­vice staff had repeatedly demanded that Maehr notify them when he took a capture team into Big Cypress. Jansen was doing her own capture work now, and didn’t want Maehr interfering. But her demand was one that Maehr had repeatedly ignored—to the point that his boss had sent him a scorching memo about it. Yet he continued with the same behavior. The state’s own capture team was on his side. “The average Joe could go there anytime—but we had to ask permission,” McCown told me. “I didn’t understand that.” Maehr’s team members were also mad at Roelke. Despite Maehr’s objections, she had pushed the captive breeding idea, to the point of selecting which kittens should be cap­tured. Roelke was convinced that Maehr had turned every­one against her. When her old partners on the capture team looked at her, she said, the looks they gave her made her feel like “the evil Antichrist.” Roelke was so upset that she was ready to not only leave panthers behind, but leave the country. She had accepted a job in Africa as the chief veterinarian for Tanzania’s national park system. She was scheduled to leave for the new job before the conference began, but she postponed her trip for this one last White Oak discussion. What could anyone do to pull the panthers out of their extinction spiral? As she looked around the room, she saw signs of nothing but defeat. “They all shook their heads and said, ‘It’s over. It’s done,’” she recalled. Roelke had at least one friend in the room: Stephen O’Brien, the geneticist from the National Cancer Institute, who had started working with Roelke on cheetahs and now collabo­rated with her on panthers. He considered her work crucial to diagnosing what was wrong with the panthers and figuring out how to save them. But he could see, too, how distressed she was at how things had worked out. At one point in the meeting, he said, she leaned over to him with tears trickling down her cheeks and said, “At least they’re finally listening to me.” That left the big question: Given the failure of captive breed­ing, usually the last option to save a dying species, what could anyone do to pull the panthers out of their extinction spiral? This was the dusky seaside sparrow story all over again, only worse. This wasn’t some drab little bird. This was Florida’s state animal, the mascot of schools galore, the icon on scores of li­cense plates. The only thing left to try, the only option for a “Hail Mary” pass, was something no one had ever tried before. Something nearly unthinkable. It could potentially save the panthers—but it might also unravel the legal protections surrounding them. * The record is unclear about who first brought it up. Nobody I talked to was sure about who was desperate enough to mention it. O’Brien thinks it might have been Roelke. That makes sense to me. She was always outspoken, and now that she was leaving, she had no reason to hold back. She would never see these people again. Why not speak her mind? But Lacy thinks it was Ulie Seal, always an advocate for pursuing an idea to its logical conclusion, no matter whether it was legal or wise. That makes sense too. Whoever it was, the two-word phrase he or she uttered was something no one had wanted to think about. Genetic augmentation. Usually when people in Florida talk about “augmentation,” they’re talking about plastic surgery—specifically breast or butt implants. Florida has a big market for that kind of augmenta­tion. Billboards lining US 19 on part of the Gulf Coast tout the docs who can give you deeper cleavage. Meanwhile vans drive around Miami adorned with wraparound paintings of women with voluptuous buttocks barely contained by thong bikinis, suggesting this bounteous booty can be yours—for the right price, of course. Ulie Seal’s rescue team had first discussed this a year earlier at a conference on panthers in Washington, DC. They dismissed the idea pretty quickly because it would cause nothing but prob­lems. Bringing in outside animals could erase local adaptations, disrupt the native animals’ social structure and spread parasites. One other consequence: “Creation of a false sense of manage­ment accomplishment.” Moving animals or plants for any reason “is fraught with danger and should be strongly discouraged,” they concluded. Nevertheless, they agreed then, there might be a rare set of cir­cumstances that could constitute an exception to this rule. Now, facing the failure of captive breeding, they had to ask: Is this one of those exceptions? Yes, they decided, it was—mostly because they had no other choice. They recognized that this solution was legally questionable. A panther bred with some other kind of puma might produce offspring that would not be protected under the Endangered Species Act. The act gives the Fish and Wildlife Service the power to pro­tect species, subspecies and distinct population segments, as well as their habitats. What the act does not address is half breeds—genetic hybrids. By pushing the purebred panther to become more of a melting pot for puma genes, corporations or special interest groups could cite that as a reason to knock the panther off the endangered list. They could use it as an excuse to open the already shrinking habitat for rampant development. There could even be a return of the hunting season. The lack of rules covering hybrids is the reason why no one tried crossbreeding the dusky seaside sparrow before it disap­peared. The half breeds would lack any legal reason to keep people from shooting them. Yet, as that example showed, keeping a bloodline pure to maintain legal protection was a pointless exercise if the animal ceased to exist. There would be nothing left to protect. But this isn’t that kind of augmentation. Genetic augmentation doesn’t make your body parts bigger and squishier and sexier. Instead, it’s all about fixing a fouled-up gene pool by introduc­ing something fresh and new. How do you genetically augment the poor Florida panther? By bringing in some other kind of puma to breed with it. At that point, O’Brien said, having acknowledged the dire re­ality they were all facing, there was a shift in the debate. Instead of arguing over whether to bring in another kind of puma to breed with the panthers, they started arguing over which puma to use. The choices: North American mountain lions versus South American pumas. To O’Brien, logic dictated going after the puma subspecies with the healthiest genes. The South American pumas met that requirement, he said. For proof of how well they would mix with panther genes, he contended, look no further than the Piper cats in the Everglades. Their clean genes saved the fading pan­thers in the River of Grass, producing hybrids with no kinked tails or vanishing testicles. But others pushed for sending McBride back to Texas to cap­ture some of the cougars he had spent decades pursuing. Al­though American pumas had a generally poor sperm count, there were other, historic reasons to favor Texas cougars. What we now call the Florida panther once ranged across the whole South. In those days, the Florida cats probably bred with the occasional Texas cat. Their habitats overlapped, and so at some point their genetic material had probably mingled. One person who wasn’t debating South versus North Ameri­can pumas? Maehr, who still didn’t see the need for this discus­sion, O’Brien said. “He was in denial about the data,” O’Brien said. “He thought it was just hand-waving by a bunch of scientists who wanted to make themselves famous by publishing a lot of papers.” Even five years later, in his book, Maehr made it clear he remained unpersuaded. He continued arguing that genetic augmentation was unnecessary, based on bad assumptions and fraught with the potential to cause new problems. The extinction clock was still ticking closer and closer to zero. Finally, after a three-handed debate, the group backing genetic augmentation with a bunch of Texas cougars won the day. But that wasn’t the end of it, because of course once the scientists had reached a consensus, then the bureaucrats started second-guessing everything. Meanwhile, the extinction clock was still ticking closer and closer to zero. The US Fish and Wildlife Service had a particularly hard time saying yes. This would be the first time ever that the feds had attempted to save an animal from extinction by breeding it with a close relative. Rare is the bureaucrat who wants to be first, especially with a closely watched project that could eas­ily go awry. Finally the delay passed from the realm of annoying to dan­gerous. In April 1994, nine scientists wrote to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and to US Fish and Wildlife Service di­rector Mollie Beattie. They said there was a plan that could save the panther, yet some higher-ups in the agency had “conspired to frustrate this objective.” Their letter spelled out who would be at fault if panthers disappeared. That finally ended the foot-dragging. Two years after Seal’s group proposed it, the Fish and Wild­life Service produced a two-page memo that officially approved the experiment. Genetic augmentation—or as it was now being called, “genetic restoration”—would be all right so long as state biologists exercised careful scientific control to guarantee that the kittens “most closely resemble the species as listed.” * In January 1995, all the bureaucrats involved gave Roy Mc­Bride the green light to go capture eight female cougars from Texas and turn them loose in South Florida. That month was a big one for the government trying to re­vive big predators. Just as McBride got his approval, a truck car­ried fourteen Canadian wolves into Yellowstone National Park, which had been completely wolf-less since the last one was killed off in the 1920s. Within seven years there were more than one hundred of them. Although McBride and Maehr didn’t see eye to eye on some things, they agreed on genetic augmentation, or genetic resto­ration, or (as some journalists were now calling it) “outbreed­ing,” which made it sound like the polar opposite of inbreeding. But because he’s a professional, McBride agreed to carry out the assignment anyway. After all, it kept him busy doing the thing he loved, hunting pumas. He headed to Texas to do what he’d been hired to do, in the place he knew better than anyone else. His only instructions were to be sure the cougars were all young, healthy females, from places far enough apart to ensure they weren’t closely re­lated to each other. The game commission wanted females be­cause males would roam around more, making them harder to track, McBride explained to me years later. Females would be more likely to stay put near where they were released, he said. If this were a movie, we would now see a montage featur­ing the most visually striking imagery of the story. The movie would leave behind the murk of the swamp, the dampness and the dark shadows of the Fak and the Big Cypress. Instead the camera would pan across a classic Western vista, a bright sun washing across the rocky land, a big sky overhead, not a sign of a house or a car at this place hundreds of miles from civilization. We zoom in on a solitary figure. A tall and lanky hunter rides through this vast and trackless desert, the rugged moun­tains forming a picturesque backdrop. His battered Stetson is angled to keep the morning sun out of his eyes. There’s a grim set to his jaw. It’s a mule. McBride picked that as his mount because of the need for a sure-footed ride in this rough terrain. Our rider has no backup. There’s no capture team to trail along behind him now. No burly guys in uniform ready to climb a tree. No veterinarian toting a big pack full of medical equipment. He didn’t even bring his sons along this time. It’s just McBride and his dogs, searching for signs and scents amid the mesquite brush and prickly pear cactus. He likes it this way—just him against nature. Unlike in Florida, where the panther hunters weren’t allowed onto private lands, here McBride is welcomed by every rancher he meets. They know him and his reputation. They are delighted to see him. They don’t like the cougars, which frequently prey on their sheep. They know he’s here to take some of them away. “They were very eager!” McBride told me. There were other differences from Florida too. When his dogs caught a scent and began to chase a cougar, the cat didn’t run up a tree. There weren’t enough trees for that. Instead it would scramble atop a boulder or slip inside a cave. That meant that, unlike in Florida, McBride couldn’t just fire a tranquilizer dart at the cornered cat. Instead he would have to maneuver his mule around to flush it out—quite a trick, given how skittish the mule was about getting close to a cougar. “The mules don’t like ’em,” he explained. “I blindfolded him so he couldn’t kick me.” So there he was, all alone, riding a blindfolded mule, his quarry in a hiding place nearly inaccessible to a humans, the fate of the panthers back in Florida riding on his rare abilities. No pressure. But McBride performed the usual McBride miracle. In just a matter of months, he caught between 15 and 20 cats, he told me. Many of them were unsuitable for the job. They were male, for instance. Or they were too old. Or they didn’t seem healthy enough. Those he turned loose again. Whenever he caught one that seemed like a keeper, he’d shoot it with the tranquilizer dart containing a drug called ketamine. Once it was asleep, he’d hoist the drugged cat onto the back of the still-blindfolded mule and lead it back to where he had left his truck. Then he’d hitch the mule to the truck and load the cat into the front seat, as if it were some drunk uncle he’d picked up passed out in a bar. McBride would then climb be­hind the wheel and start making the long drive home with the mule trotting along behind and the snoozing cougar slumped down next to him. He kept the cougars in the front seat, he explained, so he could monitor how comatose the cat was. The ketamine that knocked them out didn’t always last for the whole trip. If he had put the cat in the back of the truck, it might have awakened and jumped out. Keeping the cougar in the truck cab, while risky, seemed preferable to losing one. “If it began to recover, I’d give it a little more ketamine,” he said. At home McBride had built a pen to keep the cougars quar­antined, both from other cougars in the wild and from each other. They had to be penned up for thirty days, as requested by Florida officials. A veterinarian stopped by to take blood samples and check for any obvious health problems. Texas parks officials brought him dead animals, and gave their blessing to removing the cougars from the state. It’s not as if they were endangered in Texas. Once he had eight female cougars that had passed all the health tests, it was time to haul them back to Florida. That turned out to be even trickier than catching them. McBride looked up a number for an airline at the nearest air­port, which was two hundred miles away, and called to ask ad­vice on how to transport such a cargo. The man on the other end of the line spelled it out for him. He couldn’t just stuff them into regular pet carriers, as if they were somebody’s Pom­eranians. He’d have to buy or construct special cages for each cougar. The airline employee told him the dimensions would have to be this, the air holes would have to be that, the handles would need to look like so. There would have to be a way to water the cougars during the flight without opening the door. That’s the only way they would be allowed onto the plane. He even sent McBride the blueprints. McBride took careful notes on everything, looked over the blueprints, then got some wood and started sawing and ham­mering. Before long he’d built all eight cages. He thought they were pretty luxurious compared to the standard pet carrier. Being McBride, he of course figured out how to persuade the cougars to climb in with a minimum of fuss. Then he loaded each crate into a trailer and, two months after his initial phone call, hauled them to the airport. That’s where things went sour. The airline employees on duty took one look at McBride and his traveling cat troupe and said no way. No giant apex preda­tors with sharp teeth would be allowed on board. “They had a fit,” McBride told me. “They said, ‘You are not going to put those animals on an airplane.’” McBride was flabbergasted. He had followed the instructions to the letter. He was all set to fly these cats to Florida. Now it was looking like he’d have to figure out how to truck them across most of Texas, through the coastal part of Louisiana, Mis­sissippi and Alabama and then down the spine of Florida to the southern tip. Even the idea of hauling them two hundred miles back to his home was daunting. Fortunately, just as he was about to turn around in defeat, the employee he had talked to on the phone showed up. Just like that, everything changed. This guy gave McBride a big smile and a thumbs-up to load the cats. They were cleared to fly to Florida, making the trip in hours instead of days. It turned out that this particular airline employee had a vivid memory of his conversation with McBride about the cougars. “He’d been waiting to see ’em!” McBride said, laughing. * In Florida, the biologists decided to release the female cou­gars in pairs. Two would be turned loose in the Fak, two in the Big Cypress and so on. The first pair were taken to the Fak. There, near the end of an unpaved road ten miles from the nearest house, McBride put them into a chain-link enclosure. The release plan called for keeping them penned up there for two weeks. They’d be fed deer meat and allowed to acclimate to the sights and smells and sounds of the swamp that was to be their new home. At the end of March 1995, state officials planned to turn them loose with the appropriate pomp and ceremony. They invited fifty dignitaries and reporters from around the state to serve as witnesses for this momentous event. When everyone showed up, though, they discovered some­thing surprising: only one cat remained in the pen. It was an eighty-pounder that crouched beneath a tall oak, panting in the heat and snarling at anyone who dared to stare at it through the slits in the burlap screen. Where was the second one? It had already escaped. One of the reporters who covered the release party wrote that the seventy-pound female cougar had “initiated her own early-release program by repeatedly hurling her body at full speed into the chain-link fence until she loosened the metal clips holding it to a corner pole—and out she went.” Fortunately the biologists had already attached radio collars to both cougars, so they knew precisely where the escapee had gone. Once they turned the remaining captive loose, they could track both of them from the air, following their progress as they accustomed themselves to their new home and—everyone hoped—mated with whatever remaining males could still pro­duce viable sperm. The other releases proceeded with less drama. Every few days, someone from the capture team would take to the air and buzz around checking on the cougars’ locations, tracking where they ended up, marking how close they were to any males. Seven months passed like that. Then, in October 1995, game commission officials were ready to hand out cigars. A miracle had happened. Their Hail Mary pass had landed just right to become a touchdown. One of the Texas females had given birth to two kittens, a male and a female. They appeared to be free of all genetic de­fects. No kinked tail. No cowlick. No heart murmur. No prob­lems with their reproductive system. The cougars McBride had selected had succeeded where nearly everyone expected yet an­other failure. Three of the females didn’t get to play their part, McBride told me. One Texas cougar was run over on a highway. Another was shot dead, no one knows why or by whom. One more died under somewhat cloudy circumstances, he said. That one had been pregnant at the time. But the other five performed like champions. They adapted well to their new surroundings and produced litter after litter of defect-free kittens sired by male panthers. Craig Pittman is an award-winning journalist at the Tampa Bay Times and author of 4 books, including NYT bestseller Oh, Florida! How America's Weirdest State Influences the Rest of the Country and his latest, Cat Tale. His journalism has won 4 Waldo Proffitt Awards for Distinguished Environmental Journalism in Florida. Twice he won the Society of Environmental Journalists' top investigative reporting award. He was named a Florida Literary Legend by Florida Heritage Book Festival in 2020.

The Extreme Move That Saved Florida Panthers From Extinction Craig Pittman on a Pivotal Moment for a Majestic Species In 1975, the Dallas Cowboys football team was losing to the Minnesota Vikings in a divisional playoff when the Cowboys’ quarterback, Roger Staubach, begged for divine intervention. With 24 seconds left in the game, he dropped back, launched a desperate 50-yard spiral downfield and then mut­tered a “Hail Mary” prayer as he watched it fly. The ball found its target, receiver Drew Pearson, who caught it just inside the five-yard line and ran it into the end zone for a touchdown. Thus the Cowboys beat the Vikings and the phrase “Hail Mary pass” entered America’s pop culture lexicon. “I could have said ‘Our Father’ or ‘Glory be,’” Staubach said years later. “But I don’t think ‘Our Father’ would have carried on.” In 1992, Florida’s panthers needed a Hail Mary pass. The panther experts gathered once again at White Oak Plan­tation. The owner had installed a bar, a classic one from Chicago that was rumored to have come from Al Capone’s favorite gin joint. It was on the same hall as the bowling alley. Right next to the bar and the bowling alley was a lecture hall with expen­sive wood paneling and a set of tables spread around. The clock was ticking down to zero. The game was nearly over. That’s where the experts now congregated, although they probably felt more like sitting in the bar and drowning their sorrows. As they filed into the lecture hall at White Oak on Octo­ber 21, 1992, they each wore a grim look. Captive breeding had failed. The kittens selected as having the best genetic back­ground turned out to be just as messed up as the others. Pan­thers were teetering on the brink of extinction and the bright minds studying the problem had not only failed to save them, but had actually made things worse. Outside the weather was gorgeous.

yes

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://keysweekly.com/42/rare-and-endangered-the-florida-panther-and-us/

Rare And Endangered: The Florida Panther And Us

In the April 2021 NatGeo issue, the story unfolds through maps, timelines, words and photos. They follow the path of the panther across the state and through time. It took veteran explorer and photographer Carlton Ward Jr. five years to capture the defining photographic body of work on these elusive, endangered animals. A proud eighth-generation Floridian, he knows that the panther’s future is necessarily intertwined with our own. He sat down with Keys Weekly to share what he learned. “The lead image for the story, a panther jumping across a log around a flooded section of swamp, that picture took two years to capture,” he laughed. National Geographic photographer and explorer Carlton Ward Jr. has trekked more than 2,000 miles through Florida to bring awareness to land conservation needs. CARLTON WARD JR. Florida panthers are a subspecies of mountain lion — the only one remaining in the Eastern U.S. Also known as cougars or pumas, the big cats’ historic range once extended from Florida to Louisiana, along the Gulf and up to Arkansas. Now, wild Florida panthers can only be found in the tip of southwestern Florida. Hunting and habitat loss decimated the once-healthy populations, and the species was among the first to be added to the U.S. endangered species list in 1973. At that time, fewer than 30 individuals remained, and many thought they were a lost cause, Ward said. A massive, groundbreaking conservation effort involved the introduction of eight Texas mountain lions to breed with the native Florida population, which had become dangerously inbred. Five successfully did, injecting fresh genetic diversity into the population and saving them from the brink of extinction. This effort catapulted the Florida panther to the main conservation stage, and the charismatic cat became the state animal in 1982 by overwhelming vote of students. So, does this success story have a happy ending? Not yet, Ward cautioned. Wildlife veterinarian Lara Cusack handles more kittens belonging to FP224. These young cats were measured and given immunity boosters while their mother was hunting away from the den. When panthers have space and protected habitats, their populations can grow. Only about one in three Florida panther kittens survives to adulthood. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society Today, there are roughly 200 individuals scattered in the wooded and swampy areas south of the Caloosahatchee River down to the Everglades. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in order to eat, mate and live, Florida panthers require large, contiguous lands to roam ‒ up to 200 square miles of territory per cat. This is particularly concerning given the current increases in development and continued loss of open ranches and lands. “Return of the Florida Panther” is featured in the April 2021 issue of National Geographic. National Geographic Society Which brings us to this latest NatGeo feature. Throughout, the message is clear: save our wild and open spaces to save the Florida panthers; save the cats to save Florida, as we know it. Ward’s image of a young female mother and her kitten at Babcock Ranch Preserve renewed hope that the cats are pushing north to extend their territory. This is a critical move if the species is to survive. The image proved that breeding females and kittens ‒ the future of the population ‒ were indeed moving beyond their current, limited lands. Ward told the Weekly, “The most important image is the picture on Babcock Ranch Preserve of a female panther with kittens. She’s significant because she’s the first female documented north of the Caloosahatchee, which has been the northern border of panther region.” Ward added, “This sets up an awesome opportunity where the panther can go from a south Florida conservation challenge to a statewide conservation opportunity and hopefully inspire Floridians to save enough of these wild places for the panthers to reclaim their natural territories.” The first female panther spotted north of the Caloosahatchee River since 1973 pauses on Babcock Ranch Preserve with her kitten. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society As more people move to Florida, continued development and new housing threaten the remaining panther habitat. According to NatGeo, loss of land increases cat-on-cat territorial spats and car collisions — the two leading causes of panther mortality. Roughly 25 cats are struck each year by vehicles, “a reflection of how development and road construction threaten the species at a time when roughly 900 people are moving to Florida every day,” the story says. Ward captured this tense border battle between humans and nature with images of a young male panther stepping through barbed wire and another, captured with infrared cameras, walking under a highway overpass at night. On top of these threats, scientists are studying a neurological condition called feline leuk-myelopathy, which is affecting Florida’s panthers and bobcats. Animals suffering can have trouble walking, become paralyzed, starve and even die. So, what can we do? Laurent Lollis and other cowboys round up cattle at Buck Island Ranch in south-central Florida. Such ranches take up nearly one-sixth of Florida’s landmass but are imperiled by development. The survival of the panther and the success of the Florida Wildlife Corridor depend on the preservation of these agricultural lands. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society “To protect panthers, wildlife corridors ‒ including ranches, pastures, orchards, etc. ‒ need to be preserved, not turned into subdivisions/parking lots,” tweeted NatGeo reporter Douglas Main, who authored NatGeo’s feature piece. “This will help the bevy of animals that depend on the same lands, such as alligators, bears & more. And it will help humans too.” Conservationists have created a patchwork of protected public and private lands throughout Florida’s interior called the Florida Wildlife Corridor. They hope this will encourage the panther to keep moving north. Ranchers, a vanishing breed themselves, own much of this private land. Popularly pitted against the panther, Florida’s cowboys are actually, generally, in support of its conservation. Both share the “common enemy” of development, particularly new subdivisions. Every day, ranchers are offered big bucks for their land, without which they and panthers cease to exist. “The land is still there,” Ward said. “We have a moment right now where we can choose to conserve it. There’s hundreds of landowners on the list that are open to conservation as an alternative to development. They’re waiting on conservation easements and to sell their land for national parks. We need to meet this opportunity.” The presence of Florida panther kittens is a hopeful sign for species recovery. CARLTON WARD JR. A male panther leaps over a creek at Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Florida. The rarely seen cats, which number only around 200, are reclaiming territory north of the Everglades, but their habitat is threatened by encroaching suburban sprawl. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society A panther creeps through a fence at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, emerging from nearby ranchland. The sanctuary is too small to support even one adult male panther, which may require up to 200 square miles of territory for roaming and hunting. While a male’s territory can overlap a little with that of another male, the solitary cats generally avoid each other. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society The photographer closed with his favorite thing about the animal he followed for thousands of miles through Florida’s swamps and backcountry: their perseverance. “This animal exists against all odds,” he said. “We have one of the fastest growing, most populated states in the country. We have the watery landscape of the Everglades. And we still have the last large cat in the eastern United States ‒ right here. That’s their ability to scratch out an existence on the margins, on the edge of development and landscapes criss-crossed by roads.” He added, “We can help them and ourselves. Florida has a chance to be a national leader here, if we choose to protect these places while they’re still here.” Subscribe To Our Newsletter Get Keys Weekly delivered right to your inbox along with a daily dose of Keys News. Tiff Duong is a self-made mermaid who loves all things cheesy (romantic and dairy) and thrives in the 3 am hour. She believes in leaving it all on the field and has never met a (mis)adventure she didn't love.

In the April 2021 NatGeo issue, the story unfolds through maps, timelines, words and photos. They follow the path of the panther across the state and through time. It took veteran explorer and photographer Carlton Ward Jr. five years to capture the defining photographic body of work on these elusive, endangered animals. A proud eighth-generation Floridian, he knows that the panther’s future is necessarily intertwined with our own. He sat down with Keys Weekly to share what he learned. “The lead image for the story, a panther jumping across a log around a flooded section of swamp, that picture took two years to capture,” he laughed. National Geographic photographer and explorer Carlton Ward Jr. has trekked more than 2,000 miles through Florida to bring awareness to land conservation needs. CARLTON WARD JR. Florida panthers are a subspecies of mountain lion — the only one remaining in the Eastern U.S. Also known as cougars or pumas, the big cats’ historic range once extended from Florida to Louisiana, along the Gulf and up to Arkansas. Now, wild Florida panthers can only be found in the tip of southwestern Florida. Hunting and habitat loss decimated the once-healthy populations, and the species was among the first to be added to the U.S. endangered species list in 1973. At that time, fewer than 30 individuals remained, and many thought they were a lost cause, Ward said. A massive, groundbreaking conservation effort involved the introduction of eight Texas mountain lions to breed with the native Florida population, which had become dangerously inbred. Five successfully did, injecting fresh genetic diversity into the population and saving them from the brink of extinction. This effort catapulted the Florida panther to the main conservation stage, and the charismatic cat became the state animal in 1982 by overwhelming vote of students. So, does this success story have a happy ending? Not yet, Ward cautioned. Wildlife veterinarian Lara Cusack handles more kittens belonging to FP224.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

yes_statement

"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".

https://colossal.com/what-is-disruptive-conservation/

What Is Disruptive Conservation? | Colossal

What Is Disruptive Conservation? Learn about breakthrough technologies that can re-balance the Earth and reverse climate change. Plus, benefits and examples of progress. BY Sara Ord Species and ecosystems are being lost due to human causation. Reversing the degradation of ecosystems is possible through disruptive conservation. We explain how breakthrough bioscience and genetic engineering solutions will bring the world back into balance. Inside This Article: What Is Disruptive Conservation? Disruptive conservation is the ethical use of next-generation technologies to accelerate animal and ecosystem preservation. The goal is to return near-extinct or extinct species to their original habitats so they can help restore ecosystems and reverse the effects of climate change. The name disruptive conservation originates from the term disruptive innovation, first coined in Clayton M. Christensen’s 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Like disruption innovation, disruptive conservation is about the creation of paradigm shifts to solve big problems. One of the biggest challenges facing our world is rapid species extinction and related environmental degradation. The root cause of the problem is human activity, and the resulting damage is profound. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports that 38% of all species are on the verge of extinction today and that 50% of the 5,491 mammal species on Earth are in decline—20% are in danger of complete extinction. Disruptive conservative science can turn back the clock to reverse and prevent the loss of biodiversity by using technologies such as: Species Rewilding: These conservation approaches focus on restoring or protecting natural processes and wilderness areas. Rewilding may include safeguarding or reintroducing the species that influence ecosystems. Without the presence of these species, the ecosystem is dramatically different or ceases to exist. Species Restoration: The goal is to increase the population of endangered species in a specific environment. Species De-extinction:De-extinction technologies purposely generate organisms that resemble or are the recreation of extinct species. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines restrict proxies for extinct species when re-populations of an extinct species are central to an ecosystem for conservation purposes. Genome Editing: Also known as genome engineering or gene editing, this type of genetic engineering inserts, deletes, modifies or replaces DNA in the genome of a living organism. CRISPR is the gene-editing technique that enables de-extinction. Selective Breeding: This process uses animal and plant breeding to develop specific traits by choosing which plant or animal males and females will reproduce sexually. New approaches that accelerate the protection of endangered animals and ecosystems are essential. “Traditional conservation and climate change efforts are critical, but they aren’t enough,” stresses Ben Lamm, Co-Founder and CEO of Colossal. “Experts must collaborate across fields and disciplines to build new, breakthrough solutions.” Examples of Disruptive Conservation Examples of the high-impact benefits of disruptive conservation are visible worldwide. Mindful restoration, rewilding, and de-extinction of fauna positively impact flora and their ecosystems. Disruptive conservation projects at work today include: Sumatran Rhino (Dicerorhinus Sumatrensis)/Sumatra: The only two-horned rhino left in existence, the Sumatran Rhino dwindled to just 80 individuals due to illegal wildlife trade, habitat loss, and lack of government protections. The Sumatran rhino has a fighting chance at survival through relocation and focused efforts to promote breeding in safe environments. The outlook is increasingly positive. Genetics help with de-extinction efforts to accelerate the conservation of this megafauna by continually sequencing its genetic code. With a complete reference genome, the total loss of the species is preventable. Florida Panther (Puma Concolor Cougar)/Florida: The only breeding population of puma in the eastern United States, the Florida Panther was listed as an endangered species in 1967 by the Department of the Interior. Today, there are multiple conservation measures in place. The panthers now roam safely on a contiguous range of habitat—potentially as much as 2,500,000 acres in private and public lands. Biologists use selective breeding with Texas pumas to maintain a healthy level of genetic variation in Florida panthers across their historic range. These and other techniques have raised the Florida Panther population to 200 individuals. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela Nigripes)/Wyoming: Every black-footed ferret descends from seven individual ferrets, creating genetic challenges to species recovery. On Dec. 10, 2020, efforts to increase genetic diversity and disease resistance leaped ahead with the birth of a female ferret generated by cloning. Elizabeth Ann came from the frozen cells of Willa, who was alive more than three decades ago. When Elizabeth Ann reproduces successfully, she will provide necessary and unique genetic diversity to the species. Restoring the black-footed ferret is the first successful cloning project of a native endangered species in North America. North American Plains Bison (Bison Bison)/12 States in North America: In 2008, the Department ofthe Interior issued the Bison Conservation Initiative, which manages genetic diversity and integrity across conservation herds in multiple states by relocating individuals and groups. Wide-ranging bison herds are maintained and established in areas where they fulfill their role as ecosystem engineers. The Initiative’s final goal is to restore cultural connections to bison, especially among Native Americans. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (Canis Lupus)/National Yellowstone Park: Early in the 20th century, few wolves remained in Yellowstone National Park. The effects on the ecosystem were dramatic. Elk were no longer forced to look out for predators and became abnormally sedentary. They fed on the willow trees beavers use to make dams. When the beavers ran out of their required wood supply and moved to other areas, rivers became clogged with fallen trees and other debris. The lack of beaver dams reduced fish breeding pools, and the lack of natural buffering led to devastating run-off. In 1995, the Yellowstone Wolf Project reintroduced wolf populations, igniting a slew of chain reactions. Elk had to run for their lives as they naturally do, driving them away from the willow trees the beavers use for construction. This action brought the return of the beavers and their dams. Today, the park ecosystem is rejuvenated and healthier in all aspects, from fish and birds to vegetation and water quality. Eurasian Beaver (Castor Fiber) United Kingdom and the Netherlands: These large herbivores are ecosystem engineers. From prehistoric times, beavers played a vital part in the U.K. and Netherlands ecosystem until they were hunted to extinction in the 16th century. Their extinction led to the loss of bogs, mires, and lakes, and diverse wetlands that bring enormous benefits to birds, fish, invertebrates, and mammalian species. They help reduce downstream flooding, increase water retention and clean water. In 2015, a five-year trial reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver began with breeding and dispersing two family groups in the U.K. and Netherlands. The trial helped restore their ecosystems. Woolly Mammoth (Mammuthus Primigenius)/Eventual Return to Arctic Tundra: George Church and a team of world-renowned genetic scientists at Colossal are pioneering a practical, working model of de-extinction using CRISPR genome editing. The project’s goal is to return the Woolly Mammoth to the tundra. The mammoth’s instinctual activity will stir up the icy surfaces of the landscape, stomping out thin, low-oxygen trees and exposing healthy, carbon-trapping grasses. This work will reestablish an ecosystem filled with grasslands to prevent the thaw and release stored greenhouse gases in the arctic permafrost. With light-reflecting grasslands covering the arctic land surface, snow won’t melt as quickly. The result is an ecosystem that can naturally defend against climate change. The Woolly Mammoth de-extinction project has already made great strides. DNA has been inserted from the mammoth genome into Asian Elephant cells using CRISPR genome engineering. Today, multiple genes are rewritten into Asian Elephant cell lines, generating cells closer to those of the mammoth with each decisive edit. The team is genetically engineering mutations for extra hair growth, mammoth hemoglobin, and fat production into the cell lines. Along with the prospect of decelerating arctic permafrost melt, the de-extinction project will also help protect modern elephants from extinction. For example, a dangerous strain of herpes is affecting the health of Asian elephants. From the Asian elephant sequenced genome, Colossal is looking to create a version of the virus that can be cultured—the first step in developing a vaccine or treatment. This project is one of the first synthetic biology projects to study and treat a wildlife disease. The Colossal mammoth de-extinction effort is on course to generate near-term benefits to Asian elephant conservation. The Benefits of Disruptive Conservation There are many benefits of disruptive conservation, from accelerating species preservation to restoring vital ecosystems. These benefits’ main attribute is that they deliver scalable solutions to help the Earth reach a healthier state. A 2021 Frontiers in Conservation Science report, Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future, references over 150 studies detailing the planet’s environmental challenges. The scientists found “The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its life forms–including humanity–is so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.” Disruptive conservation offers countermeasures to the catastrophic loss of biodiversity and environmental devastation currently underway. “Traditional conservation efforts, while vital, have been slowly losing ground. Species de-extinction and preservation through gene-editing technology represents an exciting and tangible new movement in science and conservation, one we hope catches the public’s eye and opens doors to a new generation of molecularly-inspired conservation capable of gaining ground and reversing loss,” explains George Church, Ph.D., Co-Founder of Colossal The interrelated benefits of disruptive conservation include: Wildlife Conservation: According to the World Animal Foundation,one-half of all species could become extinct by 2050. As species numbers wane, disruptive conservation technologies can improve genetic diversity, strengthen numbers, and protect species and habitats. Bringing Back Lost Species (De-extinction): Humans are responsible for rendering many large megafauna extinct. Bringing species back ethically, as in the Woolly Mammoth de-extinction project that uses genetics, restores the ecosystems they inhabited. Decelerate Climate Change: Protecting or regenerating animal species and biodiversity can put the brakes on climate change and global warming. Boost Biodiversity: Reinvigorating ecosystems with the reintroduction of species that support the renewal of flora and fauna. Scalability:Reintroducing keystone species that are vital to maintaining an ecosystem is more scalable than traditional conservation programs. These species can be relocated to these environments or generated by de-extinction technology. Vital Ecosystem Conservation: New conservation technologies foster an ecosystem that can maintain its defenses against climate change. The Future of Disruptive Conservation While there have been decades of groundwork laid for disruptive conservation, new technologies are on the horizon. The future of this practice will involve research and development in genetic engineering, genetic reconciliation, and species extension. Future disruptive conservation research and development areas include: E-conservation: Conservation needs support from multiple communities. New technologies will play a role in making faster connections that foster conservation research, development, and solutions. Using the Internet of Things to transfer and collect data, blockchain to move funds, and other emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, DNA barcoding, rapid sequencers, and bots will speed up the development, collaboration, and funding needed to take disruptive conservation to the next level. Epigenetics: Epigenetics is the study of the changes in inheritable characteristics that occur without DNA sequence alterations. Epigenetic variation links a genome to the environment, provides the required information on organisms’ ecological background, and is useful in conservation biology projects. Non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to express themselves differently. Cellular and physiological phenotypic trait effects may be a part of normal development or external or environmental factors. These epigenetic changes can endure through cell divisions for the life of the cell or last for multiple generations, even though the underlying DNA sequence of the organism does not change. Genetic Engineering: CRISPR is an engineered cellular technology that scientists use for recognizing and cutting a specific code of DNA inside the nucleus. First observed in bacteria, CRISPR technology occurs naturally. Scientists have been able to re-engineer it to work in eukaryotic cells (meaning cells with a nucleus and organelles, all enclosed in a plasma membrane). These are the types of cells humans and animals possess. In mammalian cells, such as an elephant or a Woolly Mammoth, CRISPR works with an enzyme called Cas9 to modify genes. A CRISPR/Cas9 complex will use a single guide RNA from CRISPR to guide and recognize a specific sequence of DNA, where the Cas9 molecule will cleave those strands that complement the CRISPR sequence. Cas9 allows for the reinsertion of the laboratory-engineered DNA to create favorable traits. Gene Drive Systems: A gene drive is a phenomenon that often occurs naturally when a particular gene gets passed down with a greater probability than the usual 50%. The occurrence often happens naturally. Synthetic biology scientists are probing the possibility of exploiting gene drives to disseminate genetically engineered changes over many generations through wild populations. Genetic Reconciliation: Genetic reconciliation is the act of preserving the genetic information of species with next-generation sequencing technologies. The goal of genetic reconciliation is to produce high-quality genome assemblies of species that are categorized as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered by the IUCN. Genetically backing up species contributes towards the preservation of species genetic information so that they are not lost forever. Species Extension: Species extension allows species that are at risk of extinction to be given a new set of tools from their extinct relatives so that they can survive in new environments. Via species extension, processes involving the evolution of adaptations to different climates and terrain can be expedited. For species that are on the brink of extinction, slow to evolve due to limited numbers and long lifespans, and are running out of habitable terrain, there are very limited technologies that can aid them. Colossal is developing a species extension pipeline that can be utilized to equip targeted species with adaptations discovered in the genes of their ancestors. “Beyond the mammoth, Colossal is productizing the ability to use CRISPR easily and unlocking the power of synthetic biology. That’s the power humanity needs to stave off the worst of climate change and to adequately adapt to the effects we can’t stop. Scaling biotech will fuel an explosion of solutions in food creation, materials and chemical production, and even geo-engineering,” states Michael Luciani of Climate Capital. Colossal Is at the Forefront of Disruptive Conservation Colossal focuses on the de-extinction and eventual rewilding of the Woolly Mammoth. This resurrection will foster an ecosystem equipped to face humanity’s adverse effects on vital ecosystems. The laboratory is on track to bring back the Woolly Mammoth by 2026. “Bringing back the Woolly Mammoth and extinct species is an exciting breakthrough, but this technology can also help preserve the species we have,” notes Church. “We want to shine a spotlight on real, tangible results CRISPR offers and spark a renewed passion for conservation.” CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology enables this profound project to move forward. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient than other existing genome editing methods. “Sharing a de-extinction vision with George has allowed Colossal to build an aggressive path towards thoughtful disruptive conservation to drive ethical species restoration and healthier ecosystems,” Lamm adds. Want to Learn More About Disruptive Conservation? There is so much to do to restore lost ecosystems. Colossal has accepted humanity’s duty to make a better world, solve for future economies and biological necessities of the human condition through cutting-edge science and technologies. The Woolly Mammoth de-extinction project is eminently doable. By creating life to preserve life, we are concerned not just with the next generation but those who will be here hundreds or thousands of years from now. Let’s make a better world together. Join our newsletter. Let's make a better world together. Send me newsletter updates. Enter Email After signing up for our newsletter, you may also receive occasional surveys and special topical emails from Colossal via email. You understand and agree that Colossal may use your information in accordance with our Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the Unsubscribe button at the bottom of any email you receive from Colossal. After signing up for our newsletter, you may also receive occasional surveys and special topical emails from Colossal via email. You understand and agree that Colossal may use your information in accordance with our Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the Unsubscribe button at the bottom of any email you receive from Colossal.

Disruptive conservation projects at work today include: Sumatran Rhino (Dicerorhinus Sumatrensis)/Sumatra: The only two-horned rhino left in existence, the Sumatran Rhino dwindled to just 80 individuals due to illegal wildlife trade, habitat loss, and lack of government protections. The Sumatran rhino has a fighting chance at survival through relocation and focused efforts to promote breeding in safe environments. The outlook is increasingly positive. Genetics help with de-extinction efforts to accelerate the conservation of this megafauna by continually sequencing its genetic code. With a complete reference genome, the total loss of the species is preventable. Florida Panther (Puma Concolor Cougar)/Florida: The only breeding population of puma in the eastern United States, the Florida Panther was listed as an endangered species in 1967 by the Department of the Interior. Today, there are multiple conservation measures in place. The panthers now roam safely on a contiguous range of habitat—potentially as much as 2,500,000 acres in private and public lands. Biologists use selective breeding with Texas pumas to maintain a healthy level of genetic variation in Florida panthers across their historic range. These and other techniques have raised the Florida Panther population to 200 individuals. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela Nigripes)/Wyoming: Every black-footed ferret descends from seven individual ferrets, creating genetic challenges to species recovery. On Dec. 10, 2020, efforts to increase genetic diversity and disease resistance leaped ahead with the birth of a female ferret generated by cloning. Elizabeth Ann came from the frozen cells of Willa, who was alive more than three decades ago. When Elizabeth Ann reproduces successfully, she will provide necessary and unique genetic diversity to the species. Restoring the black-footed ferret is the first successful cloning project of a native endangered species in North America.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

no_statement

"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".

https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/florida-panther

The Florida Panther | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Search The Florida Panther Written By In 50 years, the endangered Florida panther has made a long journey back from the brink of extinction. The population has rebounded from an estimated low of 10 animals to over 200 animals since it was put on the first Endangered species list in 1967. Now the panther is at a crossroads. Panthers, historically, roamed the entire southeastern United States. Development badly fractured their habitat. Hunting nearly eliminated them; genetic defects affected their health and survival. Eight female panthers were brought in from Texas in the 1990s and released in Florida to breed. It worked. “Introducing the female Texas pumas into the population increased panther numbers, genetic diversity, and survival rates,” said David Shindle, Florida panther recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A certified wildlife biologist, Shindle has made the Florida panther his career for more than 20 years. At this juncture, he said, the panther must expand its range northward. That’s why, when a camera captured a female panther in 2017 leading her kittens north of the Caloosahatchee River -- for the first time in more than 40 years -- it was considered a milestone. “Increasing the range and size of the population is the progress of recovery,” Shindle said. Panther kittens, photo taken in 2004. Photo by David Shindle, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Panthers need a lot of space. Males claim 200-square-mile territories and will sometimes fight other males to death if their territories overlap. As their numbers rise, urban sprawl hems them in. Development, associated with an estimated 1,000 people moving to Florida every day, consumes and fragments panther habitat in southwestern Florida. It narrows escape routes from sea-level rise. With too little space, panthers may again succumb to genetic disorders and diseases. The Caloosahatchee River flows west from Lake Okeechobee to Fort Myers and cuts the state in half, which discourages panthers from crossing to the north. It’s mostly rural, open land north of the river with privately owned properties and a mosaic of federal, state and conservation lands that together create critical corridors for panther recovery. Yet new subdivisions generate more roads and highways. Vehicles kill more panthers than anything else. Last year, 21 died by automobile. The year before: 22. This year, already, eight panthers have been killed by cars. Researchers and designers with the Florida Department of Transportation, the University of Central Florida, and the University of Florida are modeling future roadway crossings for panthers to be able to expand north. They use information collected in southwestern Florida – types of roads, where they cross, where they were hit, prey availability, habitat selection – to generate future crossing patterns further north. When a potential crossing is identified, cameras are set to verify the presence of wildlife. Wildlife crossings include bridges, underpasses, box culverts, drainage pipes and shelves built under bridges. Fencing funnel panthers and other wildlife into the crossing and out of the roadway. Currently, Florida Department of Transportation is building the Western Green Swamp crossing east of I-4 and SR 557, to be finished next year. Projects in the design phase awaiting construction funds are the I-4 wildlife overpass and SR 33 at Saddle Creek, US 27 near Lake Livingston, and the US 27 Venus Wildlife crossing. Construction of these crossings is tentatively scheduled within five years. Crossings the department has identified for design include one at SR 29 north of SR 78 and SR 66 south of Highlands Hammock. If panthers can avoid Tampa and St. Petersburg, swim the Caloosahatchee River, cross state roads 27, 80, 70, 60 and Interstate 4, and stay away from Orlando, they will have a fighting chance. Federal, state and conservation lands will protect them as the habitat is managed for wildlife. Ranches comprise much of this rural land, where conservation easements protect excellent panther habitat. Military installations at Avon Park and Camp Blanding provide safe spaces too. A panther uses the Bear Island Wildlife Crossing that connects Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge with Big Cypress National Preserve in 2019. Photo by USFWS The Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) have worked through the years with nonprofit organizations and other government agencies to create conservation corridors to expand the panthers’ range, increase their numbers and help them migrate. FWC is the lead agency on the research and management of the Florida panther. “It can be done with the green infrastructure that we have,” said Elizabeth Fleming, Senior Florida Representative for Defenders of Wildlife. Fleming has worked with the Service and the Panther Recovery Implementation Team for almost a decade. Her nonprofit has been involved in Florida panther advocacy protection before it was even listed as endangered. She is hopeful. “We have had great success, resulting in a much healthier, growing population. Now the success of our conservation efforts is meeting the barriers of habitat, traffic, and colliding with the human population,” Fleming said. “We need education to expand acceptance for panthers and to reduce conflict.” Shindle said the goal is to have a viable population that can survive on its own and eventually recover to the point it can be removed from the Endangered Species List. Cary Lightsey is one of many generational ranchers who has placed land in conservation easements. “That is what everyone is striving for,” said Mark Lotz, a FWC panther biologist, he has worked on the panther recovery team for 27 years, dealing extensively with landowners. As the population has increased, so too have depredation complaints about panthers – up to a high of 62 in 2017. He adds, though, that there have been fewer complaints in recent years and instances of human-panther interactions have been infrequent. Cary Lightsey is a sixth-generation rancher who believes we can share the land with the panther. “We need to protect the panther. It’s part of the balance of nature,” he said. “It’s part of Florida and I don’t want to lose it.” For the last eight years, Lightsey has watched a female panther and her twins in his citrus grove on Tiger Lake Ranch. She returns every year and has twins. When the kittens lose their spots, they leave. Lightsey has put 92 percent of his land in conservation easements. “I don’t want it to be developed, ever,” he said. “I want to stay family ranchers, and my whole family feels the same way.” Recently, he took two of his granddaughters to the Polk County Commission meeting to propose a tax for conservation easements. He noted that 58,000 people had moved into the county in just the last year and development follows right behind them. “It passed. Everyone voted for it,” he said. The Service’s Shindle, when he does outreach presentations, tells folks to find common ground. "Ranching families want to preserve their heritage for future generations and the panther needs these working ranchlands to survive. To save the panther, you need to save the rancher," he said. State land acquisition programs such as Florida Forever and the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program preserve panther habitat through conservation easements. Federal programs help acquire conservation easements and preserve agricultural lands with wildlife values. These programs provide matching funding for landscape-scale conservation projects with other governmental and non-profit organizations. The Florida Wildlife Corridor Act that passed last year specifies a network of green spaces for wildlife and the panther that encompasses 18 million acres, with 10 million protected federal, state, local and conservation lands. The legislation provides some funding to purchase conservation easements or to acquire land. The 2070 Trend map represents the land use pattern most likely to occur if the 2070 population projections are met and counties continue to develop at the 2010 gross development densities. Developed lands (2070 Trend scenarios) 11,648,000 acres or 33.72% of lands. Data Source: FNAI, NRCS, ESRI Enhancing conservation corridors could provide protected habitat for 74 federally and state listed threatened and endangered species and many other species of native wildlife. It could provide ​perpetual habitat ​protection, improving connectivity and reducing habitat fragmentation which can assist species adapt to the effects of climate change climate change Climate change includes both global warming driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns. Though there have been previous periods of climatic change, since the mid-20th century humans have had an unprecedented impact on Earth's climate system and caused change on a global scale. Learn more about climate change and the threat of development. With an established corridor the Florida panther can head northward on its journey to open lands and away from extinction. Footer Menu - External Links You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Search The Florida Panther Written By In 50 years, the endangered Florida panther has made a long journey back from the brink of extinction. The population has rebounded from an estimated low of 10 animals to over 200 animals since it was put on the first Endangered species list in 1967. Now the panther is at a crossroads. Panthers, historically, roamed the entire southeastern United States. Development badly fractured their habitat. Hunting nearly eliminated them; genetic defects affected their health and survival. Eight female panthers were brought in from Texas in the 1990s and released in Florida to breed. It worked. “Introducing the female Texas pumas into the population increased panther numbers, genetic diversity, and survival rates,” said David Shindle, Florida panther recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A certified wildlife biologist, Shindle has made the Florida panther his career for more than 20 years. At this juncture, he said, the panther must expand its range northward. That’s why, when a camera captured a female panther in 2017 leading her kittens north of the Caloosahatchee River -- for the first time in more than 40 years -- it was considered a milestone. “Increasing the range and size of the population is the progress of recovery,” Shindle said. Panther kittens, photo taken in 2004. Photo by David Shindle, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Panthers need a lot of space. Males claim 200-square-mile territories and will sometimes fight other males to death if their territories overlap. As their numbers rise, urban sprawl hems them in. Development, associated with an estimated 1,000 people moving to Florida every day, consumes and fragments panther habitat in southwestern Florida. It narrows escape routes from sea-level rise. With too little space, panthers may again succumb to genetic disorders and diseases.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

no_statement

"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".

https://www.tampabay.com/environment/breeding-florida-panthers-with-cougars-saved-the-state-animal-from-extinction-new-study-says-20190719/

Breeding Florida panthers with cougars saved the state animal from ...

Breeding Florida panthers with cougars saved the state animal from extinction, new study says Roy McBride inspects the teeth on a sedated panther. McBride, a renowned puma hunter, went to Texas in 1995 to capture female cougars and bring them back to Florida in hopes they would breed with male Florida panthers. The experiment worked. [Courtesy of Tim Donovan, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] No more than 30 Florida panthers were left, and several suffered from genetic defects caused by inbreeding. Desperate, state officials tried something no one ever had before: Bringing in eight female Texas cougars, a close cousin of the panther, to breed with the remaining males. A new scientific study, being published Monday, says that genetic rescue of the Florida panther has been a ringing success, and has not produced the monstrous hybrid that some feared. Not only did the rescue save the state animal but it continues providing benefits to the population five generations of cats later, according to University of Florida professor Madan K. Oli, one of the study's authors. "The population really was doomed to extinction" without the genetic rescue, Oli said Friday. Now about 200 panthers roam what's left of Florida's wild places, and they are largely free of defects. The study, being published in a journal called Wildlife Monographs, says that the authors' review of panther genetic and population data provides "persuasive evidence" that bringing in the cougars "prevented the demise of the Florida panther and restored demographic vigor to the population." If the state wants to avoid panthers slipping back into the same genetic trouble they were in 24 years ago, the study says, then Florida should bring in about five more cats from another region every 20 or so years. That's assuming, of course, there is enough habitat left to accommodate the arrival of such a large group of apex predators. The study's authors strongly recommend the state follow up with continuous monitoring of the panthers' genetic stability to watch for signs of backsliding, Oli said. That way wildlife officials will know the right time to bring in more Texas cougars "We should probably not wait until it's too late," he said. Panthers were included on the first federal endangered species list in 1967. When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, some Florida wildlife officials contended it was time to take panthers off the list because they were extinct. An environmental group, the World Wildlife Fund, hired a laconic, Stetson-wearing tracker from Texas named Roy McBride to search for signs they still existed. He found one, a scrawny female, and signs that there were others — but not many. With McBride's help, state biologists began capturing the remaining panthers and putting radio collars on them to track their movements from the air. A mishap during a capture in 1983 killed one of the few remaining panthers, leading to a decision to begin sending a veterinarian along with the capture team. Keep up with Tampa Bay’s top headlines Subscribe to our free DayStarter newsletter We’ll deliver the latest news and information you need to know every morning. Loading... You’re all signed up! Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started. The veterinarian, Melody Roelke, discovered the panthers were suffering from serious genetic defects caused by inbreeding. Some cats had holes in their hearts, so their heartbeat sounded like an off-kilter dishwasher. Sometimes one or both of the males' testicles failed to descend, leaving them unable to reproduce. Normally the way to save such a rapidly disappearing species is to launch a captive breeding program. But because of the genetic defects, that would not work for the Florida panther. That's why biologists turned to bringing in a close relative, female Texas cougars. Their rationale was that back before the South became settled, the Florida panther had ranged far outside the boundaries of the state and crossbred with its Texas counterpart back then. To save the panther, state wildlife officials dispatched McBride to the Texas mountain country where he grew up. Working alone, McBride pursued the female cougars while riding a mule that he blindfolded so it wouldn't bolt when it encountered one of the big cats. He said in a recent interview that he caught about 20 cougars, but only eight met all the necessary requirements for the experiment. Those are the ones he flew back to Florida to be released into the wild. Five of the eight Texas cougars successfully bred with male panthers and produced healthy offspring, sparking a panther population rebound that continues today. Because of the success in Florida, scientists in other parts of the world are considering similar genetic rescues with other nearly vanished species, such as wolves in Michigan and possums in Australia. As the results of the new study show, "it is a viable option," Oli said. One irony about the study: It's dedicated to the memory of a biologist named David Maehr, who led the state's panther capture team from 1985 to 1994 and produced reams of scientific papers. Maehr, who in 2008 died in a plane crash while conducting bear research, was a vocal and persistent opponent of the plan to bring in cougars from Texas, arguing that the panthers had no genetic problems. "If he knew then what we know now," Oli said, "he might have thought differently."

's authors. "The population really was doomed to extinction" without the genetic rescue, Oli said Friday. Now about 200 panthers roam what's left of Florida's wild places, and they are largely free of defects. The study, being published in a journal called Wildlife Monographs, says that the authors' review of panther genetic and population data provides "persuasive evidence" that bringing in the cougars "prevented the demise of the Florida panther and restored demographic vigor to the population. " If the state wants to avoid panthers slipping back into the same genetic trouble they were in 24 years ago, the study says, then Florida should bring in about five more cats from another region every 20 or so years. That's assuming, of course, there is enough habitat left to accommodate the arrival of such a large group of apex predators. The study's authors strongly recommend the state follow up with continuous monitoring of the panthers' genetic stability to watch for signs of backsliding, Oli said. That way wildlife officials will know the right time to bring in more Texas cougars "We should probably not wait until it's too late," he said. Panthers were included on the first federal endangered species list in 1967. When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, some Florida wildlife officials contended it was time to take panthers off the list because they were extinct. An environmental group, the World Wildlife Fund, hired a laconic, Stetson-wearing tracker from Texas named Roy McBride to search for signs they still existed. He found one, a scrawny female, and signs that there were others — but not many. With McBride's help, state biologists began capturing the remaining panthers and putting radio collars on them to track their movements from the air. A mishap during a capture in 1983 killed one of the few remaining panthers, leading to a decision to begin sending a veterinarian along with the capture team.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

no_statement

"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".

https://therevelator.org/florida-panthers-pittman/

The Crazy Story of How Florida Panthers Were Saved From Extinction

Cat Tale, a new book by journalist Craig Pittman, takes us on a wild ride into the science and politics of saving an iconic species. It’s not even February yet, and Florida panthers are already having a bad year. Three have been killed by vehicles and one by a train in the first two weeks of 2020 alone. The big cats once ranged across the South but now are mostly found slinking between fragments of habitat in southern Florida. Traffic poses a significant hazard: Last year 23 panthers were killed by vehicles — a significant blow to a wild population that hovers precariously at only around 230 animals. But there likely wouldn’t be any Florida panthers today if it weren’t for decades of work to save them. The story of how Florida panthers, a puma subspecies, were rescued from the brink of extinction is expertly told in the new book Cat Tale: The Wild, Weird Battle To Save the Florida Panther, by journalist and New York Times best-selling author Craig Pittman. Pittman’s been tracking the story for 20 years at the Tampa Bay Times. The cast of characters and wild turns of event in Pittman’s book seem like the stuff of fiction. There’s the Stetson-wearing Texas cougar hunter Roy McBride, who becomes a master panther tracker. Veterinarian Melody Roelke rings the alarm on the panther’s genetic problems, only to have her male colleagues look the other way. And the arch villain of the story, a biologist nicknamed “Dr. Panther,” establishes himself as the preeminent expert but is actually fudging his research and colluding with developers. Pittman traces these and other characters through years of discoveries, mistakes, public backlash and breakthroughs — a fledgling program to radio-collar and track the animals that taught important lessons about tranquilizing big cats high up in trees; a failed captive-breeding program; a failed reintroduction plan in north Florida; and a last-ditch effort to bring in new genes by releasing Texas cougars in panther habitat. The story is tragic, inspiring and deeply poignant. In his prologue Pittman calls it a “scientific cautionary tale.” As we grapple with mass extinction across the world, he writes, “This is a guide to what extraordinary efforts it takes to bring back just one sub-species — one that’s particularly popular — and what unexpected costs such a decision brings.” Pittman talked to The Revelator about the threats that panthers continue to face and what lessons we can learn about saving other endangered species. When you first started writing about panthers 20 years ago, what did you think about their prospects? Author Craig Pittman. Photo by Dirk Shadd. My first stories were around 1998-1999. Nobody knew if the Texas cougar experiment had worked yet. Things looked pretty grim and a lot of developers were proceeding on the understanding that panthers wouldn’t be a problem anymore, so it was OK to build in panther habitat. Things looked dire at that point and it wasn’t until around 2001 or 2002 where you started seeing these new kittens being born and thinking maybe things would be OK. The concern then became making sure that the Texas cougar genetics didn’t swamp the panther genetics. We know that panthers aren’t out of the woods yet. Is there clear science on what would be considered a recovered population? Ever since scientists drew up the very first recovery plan decades ago, they said the key was to have three [geographically] separate populations of about 250 or 300 panthers. Obviously, we’re still a long way from that and from even starting a second population. You could call what’s going on in central Florida the start of a new population, but there’s just a handful of panthers there. If they choose to follow those particular goals, they’re a long way away. But I phrase it that way because [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] did not follow their own recommendations when they down-listed manatees [from endangered to threatened]. They didn’t follow their recovery plan. They just said, “Well, this computer model says it’s OK, so we’re going to say it’s OK, even though the threats are still there.” I call manatees “the endangered species you can see,” because they will show up everywhere people are — they’re in your backyard canal, swimming around your dock. At the time I wrote that book, they were an endangered species, but one that you could see with your own eyes. Panthers, not so much. Panthers are very elusive. They don’t like to be around people. So they’re more of an abstract concept to a lot of folks. People know the panthers exist, but they’ve never seen one. So it’s not quite as personal with panthers. And the other thing that I wrote about in Manatee Insanity is that the Save the Manatee Club, and specifically its cofounder Jimmy Buffett, came up with this brilliant marketing concept called “adopt a manatee,” where they took the IDs from a whole bunch of the manatees that the state had been following and, for a contribution of around $5 or so originally, you could adopt a manatee. You’d get a little adoption certificate with the name of your manatee on it and its background. People became personally invested in the fate of their particular manatee. I was digging through state archives and I saw letters from, you know, Mrs. Johnson’s fourth grade class in Mesa, Arizona to the Citrus County Commission saying, “Why are you being mean to our manatee and not passing this rule to make boats slow down?” They found a way to make people all over the country care about individual manatees as a way of getting them to care about the species as a whole. There’s no similar project for panthers and generally most of the panthers don’t have nicknames like the manatees do. There are people who absolutely love panthers, mostly in the abstract. And there are some folks who would dearly love to see a hunting season opened on them and feel like the government’s lying about how many there are. But I think the majority of Floridians support panthers and are happy that they seem to be coming back. Your book is a really incredibly in-depth case study of what it takes to save one endangered species. Are there lessons we can learn from it about saving other species? I like what Melody Roelke said — at the point where they started to realize they needed to take action [to save the panthers], it was almost too late to do anything. So her advice was, if you see it heading this way, take action immediately. Don’t dawdle around and get into arguments and get mired down in bureaucratic red tape about what you’re going to do. They really were almost too late to save the panther. It basically came down to five female Texas cougars breeding with the remaining male panthers. And had that not worked, that would’ve been it. They’d probably be gone by now. The other thing is, if you’re going to spend this much money and work this hard to bring back an endangered species, think about what’s going to happen afterwards. What are the ramifications going to be? Because as we saw with the captive-breeding experiment that they started and then dropped, they had not planned very well. They had figured out they were going to take these panther kittens out of the wild and breed them in captivity to put [grown] panthers back in the wild, but they hadn’t really thought about where they were going to put them and how they were going to train these captive panthers to be OK in the wild. What are the biggest threats they face now? The reason I waited so long to write this book is because I needed a good ending and I finally got one. [Editor’s note: We won’t give it away, but it’s a doozy.] But just because I found an ending for the book doesn’t mean the story of the panther is over. We’re now dealing with this mystery ailment that’s afflicting some panthers and bobcats, to the point where they can’t walk and scientists don’t know why. We’ve also got more large development coming down the pike headed for the area [where most panthers live]. In particular there’s a proposal backed by the governor — who is supposedly pro-environment — to build this enormous toll road right through panther habitat, which would bring more development into that area. One of my colleagues, Lawrence Mower, just wrote a story where we’d gotten copies of some emails from Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who study the panthers saying this will just basically be a stake in the heart of panther recovery if you build this toll road through there. So there are continuing threats, and we’re a long way from them being considered recovered. But things are looking hopeful in ways they haven’t for a long time and all because of the very hard work from these folks who labored for years mostly in anonymity because they believed in the cause and they believed that what was going on was something worth devoting their lives to — even though it led to burnout and fighting and depression and, in one case, suicide. In a way, I wrote the book to call attention to the role of those unsung heroes to say, look at what they did, look at the risks that they took, look at the brutal work days they put in trying to figure this out — sometimes even against the public’s own desires. is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.

Cat Tale, a new book by journalist Craig Pittman, takes us on a wild ride into the science and politics of saving an iconic species. It’s not even February yet, and Florida panthers are already having a bad year. Three have been killed by vehicles and one by a train in the first two weeks of 2020 alone. The big cats once ranged across the South but now are mostly found slinking between fragments of habitat in southern Florida. Traffic poses a significant hazard: Last year 23 panthers were killed by vehicles — a significant blow to a wild population that hovers precariously at only around 230 animals. But there likely wouldn’t be any Florida panthers today if it weren’t for decades of work to save them. The story of how Florida panthers, a puma subspecies, were rescued from the brink of extinction is expertly told in the new book Cat Tale: The Wild, Weird Battle To Save the Florida Panther, by journalist and New York Times best-selling author Craig Pittman. Pittman’s been tracking the story for 20 years at the Tampa Bay Times. The cast of characters and wild turns of event in Pittman’s book seem like the stuff of fiction. There’s the Stetson-wearing Texas cougar hunter Roy McBride, who becomes a master panther tracker. Veterinarian Melody Roelke rings the alarm on the panther’s genetic problems, only to have her male colleagues look the other way. And the arch villain of the story, a biologist nicknamed “Dr. Panther,” establishes himself as the preeminent expert but is actually fudging his research and colluding with developers. Pittman traces these and other characters through years of discoveries, mistakes, public backlash and breakthroughs — a fledgling program to radio-collar and track the animals that taught important lessons about tranquilizing big cats high up in trees; a failed captive-breeding program; a failed reintroduction plan in north Florida; and a last-ditch effort to bring in new genes by releasing Texas cougars in panther habitat. The story is tragic, inspiring and deeply poignant.

yes

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

no_statement

"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".

https://news.wgcu.org/environment/2014-08-26/as-the-florida-panther-rebounds-ranchers-face-increasing-cattle-loss

As The Florida Panther Rebounds, Ranchers Face Increasing Cattle ...

As The Florida Panther Rebounds, Ranchers Face Increasing Cattle Loss The endangered Florida Panther is experiencing a slight population rebound. While this is good news for recovery efforts, it’s becoming a problem for ranchers in Southwest Florida. That’s because panthers are killing off livestock such as cattle in large numbers, and ranchers are taking a financial hit. Charter Boat Captain Teddy Naftal has been living on the edge of the Picayune Strand State Forest in Naples for a couple years. His property is surrounded by sprawling ranch land and a lot of animals. “Look there’s a peacock here,” Naftal said while pointing to a bird walking across a pathway on his property. “We also have bears in and out of the yard daily. I see a lot of bobcats back and forth. I have deer come through once in a while.” Credit Ashley Lopez / WGCU / WGCU Teddy Naftal's small herd of cattle. Naftal said he’s used to seeing wildlife. In fact, it’s part of the reason he moved here. Naftal is a hunter. He said he also wanted to move to a property where he could keep a couple animals, mostly for tax purposes, but animals are part of the problem now. “There are turkeys here now and then, but mostly cats,” he said. “They are taking over and they are taking all the animals away from us.” Naftal’s talking about panthers. More specifically, the endangered Florida Panther. A couple decades ago, it was on the brink of extinction. In the 90s, there were less than 30 panthers roaming the state. That’s why biologists bred them with Texas Cougars, which are genetically identical to Florida panthers. The breeding worked. Right now, there are about 160 in the wild. However, a lot has changed here in Southwest Florida since the 90s. This area may be a stronghold for the panther, but right outside their refuge, there is heavy development. Ken Warren, a spokesman for U.S Fish and Wildlife, said humans spent years encroaching on panther land and now the booming panther population is creating the opposite problem. “You see a lot of issues with panthers being hit by cars,” he explained. “In some cases panthers encroaching into neighborhoods where people are living and raising their families.” "Every calf that they punch out there is gone. I haven't been able to save one." --Teddy Naftal Panthers are also particularly drawn to areas like Naftal’s property. Panthers can roam relatively safely there and there’s cattle for them to feed on. Naftal said right now he has three calves and a bull. But, he’s losing new cows all the time. “Every calf that they punch out there is gone,” he said “I haven’t been able to save one. Definitely it’s getting worse. I’ve seen it in the last three years. It’s terrible.” Naftal said his daughter brought in several miniature goats a while back. But, he says they didn’t make it a week before getting picked off by panthers. Naftal said he has a few donkeys, too. He bought them to protect the calves. And they’ve been trying – mostly unsuccessfully— to keep the panthers at bay. Credit Ashley Lopez / WGCU / WGCU Pedro, the panther-fighting donkey. “My oldest one here, Pedro, he’s the male in the bunch,” he said. “He comes with scars all the time fighting off the panthers, or the cougars.” Even though Pedro is a little worse for wear and Naftal’s herd is getting smaller, he said larger cattle ranchers in the area have it much harder. In fact, around four years ago commercial and small-scale cattle ranchers started noticing a lot of their calves – and other livestock-- were missing. Ranchers suspected panthers. So, U.S. Fish and Wildlife paid for Caitlin Jacobs, a graduate student at the University of Florida, to conduct a study. Over two years, Jacobs ear-tagged and monitored 200 cows at two different ranches in the area. She said in that time one rancher lost about 5 percent of her calves to panthers. The other lost about point-5 percent. “They maybe even thought they were losing more,” Jacobs explained. “And they could be because this is a study done just over two years. So obviously factors can change. So, 5.3 percent is really just an estimate of what could potentially happen out there.” Now, state and federal officials have to figure out a way to make sure panthers don’t end up seriously hurting ranchers in Southwest Florida. "There's nothing whatsoever that we can do to dissuade the panthers from preying on our calves at this point." -- Florida Fish and Wildlife Commissioner and rancher Leisa Priddy, on federal regulations protecting the Florida Panther. Besides the fact that cattle is big business in Florida, Warren points out ranchlands have also helped panthers rebound. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Leisa Priddy owns a cattle ranch in the area. Her ranch was part of Jacobs’ study. She was the rancher that lost 5 percent of her calves. Priddy said dealing with panthers is a tricky situation mostly because of strict federal laws protecting panthers. “There’s nothing whatsoever that we can do to dissuade the panthers from preying on our calves at this point,” she said. State and federal officials are trying to figure out a way to offset the cost of living around panthers. State panther biologist Darrell Land said there’s a pilot program in the works that will pay ranchers for maintaining land in panther areas. Land said this would be better than paying ranchers for each animal killed by a panther because most of the time it’s hard to prove. Credit Teddy Naftal A picture of a Florida Panther Ted Naftal took with his phone near his property in Naples. Ultimately, though, both Land and Commissioner Priddy explain any program should be funded by the federal government since all Florida Panther regulations are federal. Land said that could be another hurdle. “We are very hopeful that that pilot program will become a more permanent type of program, but unfortunately that may mean that Congress will have to fund the program and right now they don’t play well together,” Land said. Warren said the goal is to have three viable populations with 240 panthers each before the recovery can be called a success, though they are re-evaluating that criteria. He also says they need to find a way to get the panther population to naturally migrate north, which could help Southwest Florida. While state and federal officials try to work out a plan, Naftal wants more regulations on the panthers. Specifically, he wants his animals protected from these predators.

As The Florida Panther Rebounds, Ranchers Face Increasing Cattle Loss The endangered Florida Panther is experiencing a slight population rebound. While this is good news for recovery efforts, it’s becoming a problem for ranchers in Southwest Florida. That’s because panthers are killing off livestock such as cattle in large numbers, and ranchers are taking a financial hit. Charter Boat Captain Teddy Naftal has been living on the edge of the Picayune Strand State Forest in Naples for a couple years. His property is surrounded by sprawling ranch land and a lot of animals. “Look there’s a peacock here,” Naftal said while pointing to a bird walking across a pathway on his property. “We also have bears in and out of the yard daily. I see a lot of bobcats back and forth. I have deer come through once in a while.” Credit Ashley Lopez / WGCU / WGCU Teddy Naftal's small herd of cattle. Naftal said he’s used to seeing wildlife. In fact, it’s part of the reason he moved here. Naftal is a hunter. He said he also wanted to move to a property where he could keep a couple animals, mostly for tax purposes, but animals are part of the problem now. “There are turkeys here now and then, but mostly cats,” he said. “They are taking over and they are taking all the animals away from us.” Naftal’s talking about panthers. More specifically, the endangered Florida Panther. A couple decades ago, it was on the brink of extinction. In the 90s, there were less than 30 panthers roaming the state. That’s why biologists bred them with Texas Cougars, which are genetically identical to Florida panthers. The breeding worked. Right now, there are about 160 in the wild. However, a lot has changed here in Southwest Florida since the 90s. This area may be a stronghold for the panther, but right outside their refuge, there is heavy development.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

no_statement

"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/out-of-state-mates-bring-florida-panthers-back-from-the-brink

Out-of-State Mates Bring Florida Panthers Back From the Brink ...

Out-of-State Mates Bring Florida Panthers Back From the Brink Newsletter The Florida panthers may be saved. They simply needed a little Lone Star assist. Fifteen years ago the big cats in Florida were in dire straits, doomed to probable extinction because of genetic inbreeding and dwindling numbers. Now, though, their population is on the upswing, thanks to a program that brought in eight females from a panther population in Texas to bolster the Florida cats. Scientists who studied the experiment report in the journal Science that it has worked: Both the numbers and the genetic diversity of Florida panthers improved drastically. Hybrids of the Florida cats and cousins of the same species from a wild-caught Texas population have twice the genetic variety and far fewer of the genetic defects that were known in Floridian panthers before the introduction, says geneticist [and study coauthor] Warren Johnson. [Science News] Though researchers said back in the 1990s that the Florida cats had a 95 percent chance of going extinct if humans did nothing to protect them, the Texas plan wasn't unanimously welcomed. Skepticism lingered that such a small infusion could save the panthers, and Science News reports . The cats are all the same species (in the west the big cat is more often called a puma, cougar, or mountain lion), but the geographically distinct populations have adapted to their very different environments. Conservationists working on the panther plan worried that muggy Florida isn't quite the same as arid West Texas, where the eight females came from. However, the big cats adjusted seamlessly, according to Roy McBride, the hunter who captured them in Texas back in 1995. "These Texas cats came out of a desert where it rains five inches a year to a swamp where it rains 60 inches. You can imagine the shock of coming off a desert mountain where there's no vegetation into a big wetland or swamp. But wherever we put them, they did well. They actually gained weight." And they bred with the dying Florida cats. [Houston Chronicle] Panther protectors cannot stand down from their vigilance, despite this success. The outside threats to the majestic predators, like dwindling habitat, are not going away. Study coauthor Stephen O’Brien says the current population numbers, though a marked improvement over 1995, are not enough to ensure the success of the cats. The population is currently only about 130—far lower than the goal of more than 500 needed to maintain a stable, healthy population—and has recently stopped increasing. Moreover, signs of inbreeding are starting to appear again, so the panther population would benefit from additional cougars. "It was only a temporary fix," O'Brien says. [ScienceNOW]

Out-of-State Mates Bring Florida Panthers Back From the Brink Newsletter The Florida panthers may be saved. They simply needed a little Lone Star assist. Fifteen years ago the big cats in Florida were in dire straits, doomed to probable extinction because of genetic inbreeding and dwindling numbers. Now, though, their population is on the upswing, thanks to a program that brought in eight females from a panther population in Texas to bolster the Florida cats. Scientists who studied the experiment report in the journal Science that it has worked: Both the numbers and the genetic diversity of Florida panthers improved drastically. Hybrids of the Florida cats and cousins of the same species from a wild-caught Texas population have twice the genetic variety and far fewer of the genetic defects that were known in Floridian panthers before the introduction, says geneticist [and study coauthor] Warren Johnson. [Science News] Though researchers said back in the 1990s that the Florida cats had a 95 percent chance of going extinct if humans did nothing to protect them, the Texas plan wasn't unanimously welcomed. Skepticism lingered that such a small infusion could save the panthers, and Science News reports . The cats are all the same species (in the west the big cat is more often called a puma, cougar, or mountain lion), but the geographically distinct populations have adapted to their very different environments. Conservationists working on the panther plan worried that muggy Florida isn't quite the same as arid West Texas, where the eight females came from. However, the big cats adjusted seamlessly, according to Roy McBride, the hunter who captured them in Texas back in 1995. "These Texas cats came out of a desert where it rains five inches a year to a swamp where it rains 60 inches. You can imagine the shock of coming off a desert mountain where there's no vegetation into a big wetland or swamp. But wherever we put them, they did well. They actually gained weight." And they bred with the dying Florida cats.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

no_statement

"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".

https://mountainlion.org/us/florida/

Florida - Mountain Lion Foundation

Follow Lions Florida Florida’s Mountain Lions The Florida panther is the only known breeding population of mountain lions in the United States east of the Mississippi River. This tiny population survived early extermination by people due to the highly impenetrable Florida Everglades. It is also the only lion population to have federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. In the 1980s, the Florida panther population was down to only a few dozen inbred cats, and researchers released female lions from Texas to help bolster the population. Today, Florida panther numbers have rebounded to about 200 panthers, but their habitat continues to shrink; resulting in increased roadkill and fights to the death with other panthers for territory. Hope may be on the horizon for these cats with the Florida Wildlife Corridors Act, which aims to create safe passage for the cats to get from South Florida to Georgia where more abundant habitat lies. Learn more about current mountain lion policy, history, laws, and habitat. Status Florida FWC investigates disorder impacting panthers The FWC is investigating a disorder detected in some Florida panthers and bobcats. All the affected animals have exhibited some degree of walking abnormally or difficulty coordinating their back legs. As of August 2019, the FWC has confirmed neurological damage in one panther and one bobcat. Additionally, trail camera footage has captured eight panthers (mostly kittens) and one adult bobcat displaying varying degrees of this condition. Videos of affected cats were collected from multiple locations in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties, and at least one panther photographed in Charlotte County could also have been affected. The FWC has been reviewing videos and photographs from other areas occupied by panthers but to date the condition appears to be localized as it is only documented in three general areas. The FWC is testing for various potential toxins, including neurotoxic rodenticide (rat pesticide), as well as infectious diseases and nutritional deficiencies. The public can help with this investigation by submitting trail camera footage or other videos that happen to capture animals that appear to have a problem with their rear legs. Files less than 10MB can be uploaded to our panther sighting webpage at MyFWC.com/PantherSightings. If you have larger files, please contact the FWC at [email protected]. Bringing the Florida Panther Back from the Brink In 1950, Puma concolor coryi’s status changed from a “nuisance species” to that of a game animal. This status change halted indiscriminate killing, but the Florida panther wasn’t really protected until 1958 when it was listed as a state endangered species, and then later when it attained federal listing as an endangered subspecies on March 11, 1967. In order to consider delisting the Florida panther from the endangered species list, the federal recovery plan requires: Three viable, self-sustaining populations of at least 240 individuals (adults and subadults) each have been established and subsequently maintained for a minimum of twelve years. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. Exchange of individuals and gene flow among subpopulations must be natural (i.e., not manipulated or managed). 1988, seven wild mountain lions were caught in west Texas, sterilized to prevent breeding, and released into northern Florida to study the feasibility of relocating panthers. The results from this study were used to design and implement a second study in February, 1993 to evaluate the use of captive-raised animals in reestablishing a panther population in northern Florida and southern Georgia. Nineteen mountain lions, including 6 raised in captivity and conditioned for release into the wild, were released into the northern Florida study area and monitored through June 1995 (Belden and McCown 1996). This study found that reestablishment of additional Florida panther populations was biologically feasible. In 1995, in an effort to reverse the effects of inbreeding, eight young-adult, non-pregnant, female, Texas mountain lions were captured and introduced into the Florida panther population. A 1996 status report on the Florida panther by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission noted that the only documented breeding population of Florida panthers remained in southern Florida from Lake Okeechobee southward, primarily in the Big Cypress and Everglades physiographic regions. At the time it was estimated that only 30 to 50 animals, living in an area of roughly 4,000+ square miles, still remained. The Commission’s analysis indicated that, “without intervention, the Florida panther population had a high probability of becoming extinct in 25 to 40 years.” The report went on to state: The Florida panther faces the threat of extinction on 3 fronts. First, there is continual loss of panther habitat through human development. This continuing decline in available habitat reduces the carrying capacity and, therefore, the numbers of panthers that can survive. Second, genetic variation is probably decaying at a rate that is causing inbreeding depression (reduction of viability and fecundity of offspring of breeding pairs that are closely related genetically) and precluding continued adaptive evolution (Seal and Lacy 1989). Third, panther numbers may already be so low that random fluctuations could lead to extinction. Due to many factors, including the influx of new genetic material, increased public awareness, innovative wildlife corridors across deadly highways, and the acquisition of critical panther habitat within the primary zone, Florida’s panther population has, at the very least, doubled in size and stepped back from the brink of extinction. However, the inability of the species to expand beyond its tiny refuge in the Everglades will keep it on the endangered species list for a long time to come. Human-Caused Mortalities in Florida Now that the Florida panther is listed as a federally protected species, the number one cause of panther mortality in Florida is lack of sufficient habitat. Florida’s crowded conditions force young panthers into situations where they have to fight older more experienced panthers to establish their territories, or if they do disperse, put them at risk of being killed in an automobile collision. The five-year average of annual panther mortalities is 25 per year, with, on average, 17 of those animals being killed by motorists. After automobile accidents, intraspecific aggression is responsible for the next largest number of panther deaths. Puma concolor is a species which, after dispersal, does not normally come into contact with other panthers except to breed, or on the part of females, raise their young. Male panthers will fight and attempt to kill other panthers that enter established territories. Kittens are also at risk from male panthers since their deaths will allow their mothers to breed again. On average, intraspecific aggression is responsible for around 6 panther deaths per year, that we know of. MOUNTAIN LION MORTALITIES IN FLORIDA 1990 – AUGUST 28, 2012 TOTAL 207 Vehicular Trauma 154 Illegal Killing 7 Natural or Intraspecific Strife 90 Research 1 Unknown / Unspecified 45 Sport Hunting 0 Depredation 0 Public Safety 0 Wildlife Services 0 History Historically, Florida panthers were native to the Southeastern states including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia into South Carolina as well as Florida. Like many other populations of mountain lions across North America, these cats were extirpated from their original range under the persecution and killing regimes propagated by early European settlers, who immediately set about fearfully clearing the lands of all large predators. Indigenous tribes occupied the land for thousands of years as nomadic hunters and farmers before Europeans arrived. These tribes hunted mammoths, bison, giant tortoises, rabbits and alligators among other animals. Before the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans originally lived in what is now Florida include the Calusa, Timucua, Creek, Choctaw and Seminole. The Choctaw knew the panther as koi, the Muskogee Creek knew the panther as kaccv, the Timucua called panther yaraha. The Seminole were originally an alliance of northern Florida and southern Georgia tribes who banded together in the 1700s to fight European invaders from Spain and France. The original homelands of the Creek and other tribes were in northern Florida but since tribes of southern Florida had been mainly shipped to Cuba by the Spanish, the Seminoles retreated south, where descendants remain today. Florida remained under Spanish rule until 1821. Hunting panthers was historically part of the Seminole religious and cultural tradition where the hunter even ate the panther to gain spiritual knowledge and energy of that animal. In 1987 Seminole Chief Billie was prosecuted by the U.S. government for killing and eating an endangered Florida panther. Part of the defense argument pointed out the irony of the panther becoming endangered due to the white man’s commercial development and habitat destruction of the Everglades while a Native American, Chief Billie, was the only person ever to be prosecuted for killing an endangered Florida panther. Spanish Occupation The first recorded sighting of Puma concolor on the North American continent occurred in Florida. In 1513, a Spanish conquistador, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca spotted a “lion” near the Florida Everglades. That sighting was the beginning of negative interaction between humans and panthers in this state for more than 400 years. During that time period Puma concolor coryi was shot on sight by livestock owners, hunted for a bounty, lost their primary prey species (white-tailed deer) due to a legislative order, and had their ever-dwindling habitat degraded or changed into human settlements and agricultural development. The U.S. acquired Florida from Spain by treaty in 1821. After that, settlers began to arrive by steamboat in the 1830s and land was cleared for Florida’s first railroads. A bounty was immediately placed on panthers in 1832 in all Florida counties and the unregulated eradication of the cats had begun. In 1887, the State of Florida authorized a $5 bounty on every panther killed and the only thing that gave panthers respite from persecution was the deep, dark Everglades. This vast area of remote swampland remained an impenetrable tract of safety for the few panthers who were able to escape relentless persecution and retreat to the southern tip of Florida. In the early 1990s, the panther population was down to less than 50 individuals. Genetic defects from inbreeding were making reproduction difficult and put the population in greater jeopardy for diseases and early death. Eight female mountain lions from Texas were relocated to southern Florida to help revive the gene pool and all of their offspring are considered to be Florida panthers. Today, the Florida panther is one of the most endangered mammals in the U.S. with only an estimated 100-160 individuals remaining in the wild. Fur trade In the 1600s, the fur trade in the Americas became globalized and furs obtained from Native Americans were shipped to Europe where they were in high demand. Europeans imported goods the Indians wanted and were able to trade for the furs. In 1602, the Company of New France was given a royal charter and exclusive trading rights from Florida to the Arctic. Bounty In 1832 a bounty was placed on panthers in all counties. Then in 1887, the State of Florida authorized a $5 bounty on every panther killed. Sport and Recreational Hunting In 1950, the Florida panther was regulated as a game species with hunting seasons. Soon after that, in 1958, due to the decreasing population of the species, the panther was listed as a state endangered species. In 1967 the Florida panther was listed as endangered by the Federal Government and immediately added to the newly created Federal Endangered Species list upon its creation in 1973. Florida’s History of Panther Management The first recorded sighting of Puma concolor on the North American continent occurred in Florida. In 1513, a Spanish conquistador, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca spotted a “lion” near the Florida Everglades. That sighting was possibly the last benign interaction between humans and panthers in this state for more than 400 years. During that time period Puma concolor coryi was shot on sight by livestock owners, hunted for a bounty, lost their primary prey species (white-tailed deer) due to a legislative order, and had their ever-dwindling habitat degraded or changed into human settlements and agricultural development. The Florida panther didn’t receive any protection from humans prior to 1958 when it was listed as an endangered species under state law. By 1996, there were only 30 to 50 panthers still alive in Florida, and the only reason that many survived is because the Everglades have long prevented easy access to mankind. Important Dates in the History of the Florida Panther 1832 – Bounty placed on panthers in all Florida counties. 1887 – State of Florida authorizes a $5 bounty for every panther killed. 1937 – Florida legislature passes a bill to eradicate the white-tailed deer due to disease. 1946 – Florida’s panther listed as a subspecies of Felis concolor in both North and South America. 1950 – Panther regulated as a game species in Florida. 1958 – Florida panther listed as a state endangered species. 1967 – The Florida panther is listed as endangered by the Federal Government. 1973 – Florida panther is added to newly created Federal Endangered Species List. 1981 – First Florida panther recovery plan. 1982 – Based on a vote by Florida’s schoolchildren, Puma concolor coryi is designated as the state animal. 1986 – Three wild-caught, female Texas mountain lions are brought to Florida to test the possibilities of captive breeding. 1988 – Seven wild-caught mountain lions, captured in west Texas are released in northern Florida to study relocation possibilities. 1989 – The Florida panther National Wildlife Refuge is established. 1991 – Florida panther license plates go on sale. 1993 – 19 mountain lions, (11 females and 8 sterilized males – both captive-raised as well as wild-caught) are introduced into the local panther population to study the biological feasibility of reintroduction. 1995 – Eight wild-caught female mountain lions are captured and released in an effort to reverse the effects of inbreeding. 1996 – The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission estimates that there are only 30 – 50 panthers remaining in Florida. 2013 – Environmental groups file lawsuit to protect the Big Cypress National Preserve and the Florida panther from off-road vehicles. Habitat Scientific Name: Puma concolor coryi Note: The Florida panther was originally considered a subspecies of Puma concolor. Due to increased knowledge of the species, as well as advances in genetic research, scientists no longer consider the Florida panther as a unique subspecies though it still maintains the name. Panther Habitat and Population in Florida Many government agencies and NGOs assert that there are between 100 to 160 panthers residing in Florida. However, in 2008, a report by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission on the status of the Florida panther stated that the panther population was estimated to be approximately 100 animals and had remained at this level for several years. It was also implied that a large increase in population size was not expected or feasible because much of the available panther habitat in south Florida was currently occupied at capacity. The officially recognized capacity limits for the panther’s designated habitat zones only allow for the accommodation of a maximum of 84 animals. While the Florida panther once roamed throughout many of the southeastern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina), it was hunted to extinction everywhere except in the remote southwest corner of Florida where it was protected from humans by the impenetrable Everglades swamp. Today, an area just short of 2,200 square miles is essential habitat for the Florida panther. This habitat has been broken down into three distinct categories: primary, secondary, and dispersal. Secondary Zone If restored, might be able to support 25 to 30 panthers, but current conditions could not support this. Dispersal Zone 150,000+ acres immediately north of the Caloosahatchee River. Should function as a wildlife corridor to allow panthers to move out of south Florida. Cannot support a permanent population. Within the Florida panther’s remaining habitat, the species appear to prefer hardwood hammocks and pinelands. The saw palmetto plant is used extensively by panthers for resting, stalking prey, and as dens for young panthers. Law Generally, treatment of wildlife in the State of Florida is governed by the Florida Statutes – the state’s collection of all the laws passed by its legislature. Since our summary below may not be completely up to date, you should be sure to review the most current law for the State of Florida. You can check the statutes directly at a state-managed website. These statutes are searchable. Be sure to use the name “panther” to accomplish your searches. The Legislature The Florida State Legislature is a full-time, bicameral legislative body. The lower chamber – the House of Representatives – consists of 120 members who serve 2-year terms. Representatives are limited to four terms. The Republican Party has controlled the Florida House of Representatives since 1997. The upper chamber – the Senate – is made up of 40 members who serve 4-year terms. Florida state senators are limited to two terms. The Republican Party has controlled the Florida Senate since 1995. Information on how to contact your member of the Florida House of Representatives can be found here, and information on how to contact your state senator can be found here. The Constitution of the State of Florida governs when the legislature is to meet. Fourteen days after each general election, the legislature convenes in order to organize itself and elect officers. Regular sessions convene each year on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Regular sessions are limited to 60 consecutive days. Special sessions may be called by the governor or by the vote of three-fifths of the members of each chamber of the legislature. Special sessions are limited to 20 consecutive days unless three-fifths of the members of each chamber vote to extend the session. Road Mortalities Road mortalities are recorded in Florida and can be found by visiting Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Florida Panther Pulse page. No Roads to Ruin According to No Roads to Ruin, “In 2019, the Florida state legislature passed a bill to authorize the design and construction of three new toll roads through the heart of rural Florida. If built, these new toll roads will destroy large swaths of Florida’s last remaining rural lands and communities, pollute waterways, and threaten endangered wildlife, including the iconic Florida panther. The bill creating the Multi-use Corridors of Regional Economic Significance (M-CORES) was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on May 17, 2019, despite a veto request from over 90 organizations and businesses from across Florida.” We are actively involved in the No Roads to Ruin campaign that is working to halt the development of the toll roads and instead preserving critical panther habitat. Learn more by visiting: http://noroadstoruin.org/ 2021-04-29: Update from the No Roads to Ruin Coalition We wanted to share an update from the No Roads to Ruin Coalition of which we are a part. Along with the Coalition, we have actively been working to halt the development of the toll roads that would further fragment crucial habitat that Florida panthers and other wildlife rely on for survival. We are eternally grateful for all the time and effort No Roads to Ruin Coalition partners and individual activists have devoted to this cause. We honor them and their work to ensure a better future for Florida. The No Roads to Ruin Steering Committee did not support SB 100 because the bill did not stop all of the roads at the heart of M-CORES. SB 100 moves our state in the wrong direction and leaves North Florida’s rural communities and natural resources at risk. Florida needs a 21st Century transportation policy that takes us away from new roads through environmentally sensitive areas and towards sustainable transportation alternatives. As such, with two of three toll road threats remaining, we cannot proclaim that its passage and expected signing by the Governor as a triumph. Only two years ago many of the same Florida Legislators who supported SB 100 voted nearly unanimously to approve the three Roads to Ruin. The 2021 Florida legislature had the opportunity to fully repeal M-CORES with the introductions of SB 1030/HB 763. However, neither bill was ever heard in committee. Removing the toll road that would have imperiled the Western Everglades and existentially threatened the Florida panther is a tremendous relief. With fewer than 230 Florida panthers remaining, protecting them and their habitat is critically important for their survival and recovery. Removal of an imminent Southwest Central Corridor helps with this fight. What SB 100 does and does not do: Eliminates the M-CORES program but not all the Roads to Ruin included in the program. Eliminates the Southwest-Central Florida Connector in its entirety. Keeps the Northern Turnpike extension on the books with a different timetable. Does not eliminate the threat previously presented by the M-CORES Suncoast Connector. Provides US-19 north from the terminus of the Suncoast Parkway to I-10 as a way to replace the M-CORES Suncoast Connector. Includes the M-CORES task force recommendation of avoiding conservation lands with respect to upgrades of arterial highways, but only “to the greatest extent practicable,” and not specifically to the US 19 project. Frees up money once earmarked for M-CORES to be available for needed road projects throughout the state.This fight isn’t over. We must press on together to protect our natural resources and local communities from the Roads to Ruin.” Library Scientific Research Bartareau, T. (n.d.). Growth in body length and mass of the Florida panther: an evaluation of different models and sexual size dimorphism. Clark, J. D., & Manen, F. T. Van. (2016). Florida Panther Habitat Use in Response to Prescribed Fire Author ( s ): Catherine S . Dees , Joseph D . Clark and Frank T . Van Manen Published by?: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL?: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3803287 Accessed?: 05-03-2016 22?: 54 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use , available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info / about / policies / terms . jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars , researchers , and students discover , use , and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive . We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship . For more information about JSTOR , please contact [email protected] . Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize , preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions, 65(1), 141–147. Smith, T. R. (1989). Smith and Bass panthers , estimated at 6-9 . Despite low numbers , the stability , productivity , and dispersal potential of panthers in Everglades National Park potentially makes significant contributions to the size , genetic diversity , and long-term conservation of a wild population in south Florida . Key words?: carrying capacity , distribution , Everglades , Florida panther , landscape , mountain lion Although Florida panthers ( Felis concolor coryi ) historically occurred throughout the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plains of the southeastern United states ( Young and Goldman 1946 ), their distribution appeared to have been reduced to the Everglades region of south Flolrida by the mid-20th century ( Goldman 1946 , Tinsley 1970 ). Systematic investigation of observations and field sign Subsequently confirmed this assumption and indicated that , although panthers still were found across much of Florida , established , potentially viable ( sub ) populations of the species were limited to the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades in the vicinity and south of Lake Okeechobee ( Schemni . tz 1974 , Layne and McCauley 1976 , Nowak and McBride 1976 , Belden 1978 , McBride 1985?; but see Belden and Williams 1976 ). Persistence of a panther population in the Big Cypress- Everglades ecosystem appears to be primarily related to the remote , largely protected nature of the area rather than its quality per se as panther habitat . Early students of the Subject maintained that the extirpation of panthers in Florida and.

A 1996 status report on the Florida panther by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission noted that the only documented breeding population of Florida panthers remained in southern Florida from Lake Okeechobee southward, primarily in the Big Cypress and Everglades physiographic regions. At the time it was estimated that only 30 to 50 animals, living in an area of roughly 4,000+ square miles, still remained. The Commission’s analysis indicated that, “without intervention, the Florida panther population had a high probability of becoming extinct in 25 to 40 years.” The report went on to state: The Florida panther faces the threat of extinction on 3 fronts. First, there is continual loss of panther habitat through human development. This continuing decline in available habitat reduces the carrying capacity and, therefore, the numbers of panthers that can survive. Second, genetic variation is probably decaying at a rate that is causing inbreeding depression (reduction of viability and fecundity of offspring of breeding pairs that are closely related genetically) and precluding continued adaptive evolution (Seal and Lacy 1989). Third, panther numbers may already be so low that random fluctuations could lead to extinction. Due to many factors, including the influx of new genetic material, increased public awareness, innovative wildlife corridors across deadly highways, and the acquisition of critical panther habitat within the primary zone, Florida’s panther population has, at the very least, doubled in size and stepped back from the brink of extinction. However, the inability of the species to expand beyond its tiny refuge in the Everglades will keep it on the endangered species list for a long time to come. Human-Caused Mortalities in Florida Now that the Florida panther is listed as a federally protected species, the number one cause of panther mortality in Florida is lack of sufficient habitat. Florida’s crowded conditions force young panthers into situations where they have to fight older more experienced panthers to establish their territories, or if they do disperse, put them at risk of being killed in an automobile collision.

no

Endangered Species

Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?

no_statement

"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".

https://environment.co/endangered-species-in-the-us-to-know/

7 Endangered Species in the U.S. to Know - Environment Co

7 Endangered Species in the U.S. to Know We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission. Currently, over 1,300 endangered species live in the U.S., pushed nearly to the brink of extinction due to human interference or other tragedies. When a species vanishes completely, it may have a drastic ripple effect on other species in the area. Conservation efforts can help these animals grow in number again, but education and knowing more about these species can drive people to care about them. 1. Franklin’s Bumblebee Many people realize that bees of all kinds are crucial to the ecosystem. Without honeybees, in particular, humans may have a difficult time harnessing a replacement for the ecosystem, which is why they need extreme protection. The Franklin’s bumblebee has a limited environment, only in select parts of northern California and southern Oregon, so they aren’t often seen by many. Currently, no measures for conservation exist for the insect. We need more information to correctly assess the danger these bees might be in. Still, they’ve had a hard time. Non-native plants have taken over the native plants that Franklin’s bumblebees rely on for food, and they have to navigate through poisonous pesticides to pollinate other plants. Unfortunately, more about this species’ status needs to be known before conservation begins. 2. Indiana Bat The Indiana bat is native to its home state, and it has been endangered since the 1960s, when human intervention disturbed the caves where the bat species resides. These bats typically only live to about ten years old, and most of the population hibernates in select few caves during winter. White-nose syndrome, a disease that affects American wildlife, has crept into the dwindling population of Indiana bats. Conservation efforts are underway, but it may take a while for researchers and scientists alike to find a cure for the disease that spreads through the endangered species. 3. California Condor The California condor wasn’t always just in California. Over time, humans poisoned and killed the condors. Hazards such as wires also pose threats to the California condor. In 2007, the California governor took measures to remove lead from the water in areas that California condors populated. Since then, the population of condors has been increasing, with captive breeding becoming a success. The California condors have been breeding in both captivity and the wild now. Though the species still faces extinction, it is on its way to recovery. 4. Florida Panther The Florida panther is a subspecies of mountain lion, differing from others of its kind by its crooked tail and unique fur patterns. While it used to be found from Florida to midwestern states, this species is now only found in the southwest of Florida and wetlands. No more than 130 Florida panthers exist in the wild, and they face many threats of extinction altogether. However, recent acts of land preservation have allowed the big cat population to grow steadily. In the future, this species may make it off the endangered list. 5. Key Deer The Key deer is a subspecies of white-tailed deer found only in the Florida Keys. The wild population has fallen under 1,000 members, most often thanks to human intervention. Illegal feeding of the Key deer can spread parasite infestations that harm the species. Traffic also poses an issue for all kinds of deer, and the Key deer are no exception. Though many people may not know it as an endangered species in the U.S., the Key deer species is worth saving. We brought this species back from the brink of extinction before, and with the right conservation efforts, it could grow again. 6. Black-Footed Ferret Black-footed ferrets rely on a substantial community of prairie dogs to thrive, as they are their primary food source. Primarily, purposeful extermination or land development cause endangered species. Breeding in captivity, then releasing black-footed ferrets into the wild has proved to help the population grow more, thankfully. They are a flagship species, meaning that conserving them brings attention to the plight of other species in their ecosystem. 7. Red Wolf One of the most well-known endangered species in the U.S. is the red wolf. It used to roam many states, but now you can only find it in North Carolina. As of 2021, only about eight red wolves existed in the wild, while organizations protected others in captivity. The road to recovery is slow for this species of wolf, but in time, they may bounce back. Help Save the Endangered Species in the U.S. As the endangered species in the U.S. continue to join the list, many people need to realize that time is of the essence if they want to save these animals. Several people may think they can’t help, but by advocating for these animals and educating others, you can help drive away the fear and misunderstanding others might have about them. Get involved by sponsoring an endangered animal. Though it has been too late for many species, a collective effort can turn the tides for these endangered animals. Get the latest updates on our planet by subscribing to the Environment.co newsletter!

In 2007, the California governor took measures to remove lead from the water in areas that California condors populated. Since then, the population of condors has been increasing, with captive breeding becoming a success. The California condors have been breeding in both captivity and the wild now. Though the species still faces extinction, it is on its way to recovery. 4. Florida Panther The Florida panther is a subspecies of mountain lion, differing from others of its kind by its crooked tail and unique fur patterns. While it used to be found from Florida to midwestern states, this species is now only found in the southwest of Florida and wetlands. No more than 130 Florida panthers exist in the wild, and they face many threats of extinction altogether. However, recent acts of land preservation have allowed the big cat population to grow steadily. In the future, this species may make it off the endangered list. 5. Key Deer The Key deer is a subspecies of white-tailed deer found only in the Florida Keys. The wild population has fallen under 1,000 members, most often thanks to human intervention. Illegal feeding of the Key deer can spread parasite infestations that harm the species. Traffic also poses an issue for all kinds of deer, and the Key deer are no exception. Though many people may not know it as an endangered species in the U.S., the Key deer species is worth saving. We brought this species back from the brink of extinction before, and with the right conservation efforts, it could grow again. 6. Black-Footed Ferret Black-footed ferrets rely on a substantial community of prairie dogs to thrive, as they are their primary food source. Primarily, purposeful extermination or land development cause endangered species. Breeding in captivity, then releasing black-footed ferrets into the wild has proved to help the population grow more, thankfully. They are a flagship species, meaning that conserving them brings attention to the plight of other species in their ecosystem. 7. Red Wolf One of the most well-known endangered species in the U.S. is the red wolf.

no

Biotechnology

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?

yes_statement

"genetically" modified foods are safe to eat. it is safe to eat "genetically" modified foods

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/safety.html

The safety of genetically modified (GM) foods - Canada.ca

how the GM food was developed, including any genetic changes made to any plant, animal or microorganism used in the product how the GM food compares to an equivalent non-modified food, in terms of: nutrition quality what it is made of (for example, fats, proteins and carbohydrates) The main steps in the safety assessment: A manufacturer, importer or developer submits detailed information to Health Canada. They outline exactly how the product was developed. If the data provided is not complete, Health Canada scientists will ask the developer for more information and scientific data. Some products that do not meet our strict criteria either have their submission closed by Health Canada, or withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer before a safety assessment is completed. Health Canada scientists may supplement the information submitted by the manufacturer with relevant published data from the larger scientific community. Health Canada scientists assess all the information available. The reviews take into consideration all the available evidence before making a final decision about the health and safety of a new GM food. The use of company-generated data to perform pre-market assessments of GM foods is a standard scientific method of evaluation used by regulators around the world. While many studies published in scientific journals are the result of developer testing, a significant number of independent laboratories are also studying and publishing on the safety of GM foods. The safety assessment process is based upon principles developed by international experts from the: Codex Alimentarius Commission World Health Organization (WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Comparative approach One way to establish safety of GM foods is through a comparative approach. This approach allows regulatory agencies to identify potential safety and nutritional issues. The comparative approach identifies all differences between the GM food and the closest unmodified food with a history of safe use. We assess the differences for potential impacts on all aspects of food safety. If the differences aren't found to impact food safety, then we conclude that the GM food is as safe as food that is already considered safe to eat. The comparative approach to GM food safety assessment is used by regulatory agencies around the world in countries such as: Regulating GM foods in Canada all of the GM foods we have reviewed are as safe and nutritious as non-GM foods we have not found any verifiable scientific evidence that shows GM foods are less safe than traditional varieties we have not found a study that caused us to change our conclusions about any assessed GM food product If new information concerning the safety of GM foods does arise, we will: review the new data carefully take appropriate action if we identify any risks or concerns from eating GM foods Internationally, scientists have concluded that GM foods pose no more risk to human health than non-GM foods. In fact, GM foods are subject to a far higher level of regulatory oversight and scientific requirements than traditional organisms consumed as food. Risks of GM techniques in the food supply The risks of GM techniques in the food supply are the same as for foods produced by conventional means. These include potential risks from: toxic compounds allergenic compounds However, techniques used to produce GM foods may: permit the transfer of genetic material from unrelated species transfer a gene from an organism expressing a protein that has no history of use as a food The safety assessment: gives assurances that toxic or allergenic compounds are not transferred along with the desired characteristic when new DNA is introduced into an organism assures that any genetic changes made to an organism do not increase the level of allergenic compounds or anti-nutrients which are naturally present in some organisms consumed as food Long-term effects of GM foods Using GM techniques does not introduce unique risks into the food supply. As a result, the potential for long-term effects from these foods are no different than for conventional foods that have been a safe part of the Canadian diet for a long time. Furthermore, there is no current evidence to indicate that long-term studies are needed to ensure the safety of foods produced using this technology. Some foods may require additional considerations to address long-term health effects if the GM techniques result in: changes that create significantly different nutrient combinations other novel food characteristics not previously encountered in the food supply In such cases, long-term studies may be included in the safety assessment of these products. Canada's international involvement with GM food safety Health Canada was involved with the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces on Foods derived from Biotechnology. The Task Forces were created by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to: develop general principles for risk analysis of foods derived from biotechnology provide specific guidance on the safety assessment of such foods The work of the Task Forces led to a number of documents being adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, including: Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (2003) Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessments of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants (2003) Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Produced Using Recombinant-DNA Microorganisms (2003) Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Animals (2008) Health Canada also participates in the work of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Group for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds. This OECD Working Group is intended to promote the same standards for safety assessments and regulations of novel GM foods and feeds around the world.

If new information concerning the safety of GM foods does arise, we will: review the new data carefully take appropriate action if we identify any risks or concerns from eating GM foods Internationally, scientists have concluded that GM foods pose no more risk to human health than non-GM foods. In fact, GM foods are subject to a far higher level of regulatory oversight and scientific requirements than traditional organisms consumed as food. Risks of GM techniques in the food supply The risks of GM techniques in the food supply are the same as for foods produced by conventional means. These include potential risks from: toxic compounds allergenic compounds However, techniques used to produce GM foods may: permit the transfer of genetic material from unrelated species transfer a gene from an organism expressing a protein that has no history of use as a food The safety assessment: gives assurances that toxic or allergenic compounds are not transferred along with the desired characteristic when new DNA is introduced into an organism assures that any genetic changes made to an organism do not increase the level of allergenic compounds or anti-nutrients which are naturally present in some organisms consumed as food Long-term effects of GM foods Using GM techniques does not introduce unique risks into the food supply. As a result, the potential for long-term effects from these foods are no different than for conventional foods that have been a safe part of the Canadian diet for a long time. Furthermore, there is no current evidence to indicate that long-term studies are needed to ensure the safety of foods produced using this technology.

yes

Biotechnology

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?

yes_statement

"genetically" modified foods are safe to eat. it is safe to eat "genetically" modified foods

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food - Scientific American

In Brief The vast majority of the research on genetically modified (GM) crops suggests that they are safe to eat and that they have the potential to feed millions of people worldwide who currently go hungry. Yet not all criticisms of GM are so easily rejected, and pro-GM scientists are often dismissive and even unscientific in their rejection of the counterevidence. A careful analysis of the risks and benefits argues for expanded deployment and safety testing of GM crops. Robert Goldberg sags into his desk chair and gestures at the air. “Frankenstein monsters, things crawling out of the lab,” he says. “This the most depressing thing I've ever dealt with.” Goldberg, a plant molecular biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, is not battling psychosis. He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Particularly frustrating to him, he says, is that this debate should have ended decades ago, when researchers produced a stream of exonerating evidence: “Today we're facing the same objections we faced 40 years ago.” Across campus, David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has the opposite complaint. “A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology,” he says. “Thirty years ago we didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later.” The result, he insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing. Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet. Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder. Skeptics would argue that this contentiousness is a good thing—that we cannot be too cautious when tinkering with the genetic basis of the world's food supply. To researchers such as Goldberg, however, the persistence of fears about GM foods is nothing short of exasperating. “In spite of hundreds of millions of genetic experiments involving every type of organism on earth,” he says, “and people eating billions of meals without a problem, we've gone back to being ignorant.” So who is right: advocates of GM or critics? When we look carefully at the evidence for both sides and weigh the risks and benefits, we find a surprisingly clear path out of this dilemma. Benefits and worries The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Take it from David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley agricultural and environmental economist and one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics. He argues that the benefits of GM crops greatly outweigh the health risks, which so far remain theoretical. The use of GM crops “has lowered the price of food,” Zilberman says. “It has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.” In the future, Zilberman says, those advantages will become all the more significant. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050 just to keep up with population growth. Climate change will make much of the world's arable land more difficult to farm. GM crops, Zilberman says, could produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land, withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides. Credit: Jen Christiansen Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods. Nearly all the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, but only two GM crops, Monsanto's MON810 maize and BASF's Amflora potato, are accepted in the European Union. Ten E.U. nations have banned MON810, and although BASF withdrew Amflora from the market in 2012, four E.U. nations have taken the trouble to ban that, too. Approval of a few new GM corn strains has been proposed there, but so far it has been repeatedly and soundly voted down. Throughout Asia, including in India and China, governments have yet to approve most GM crops, including an insect-resistant rice that produces higher yields with less pesticide. In Africa, where millions go hungry, several nations have refused to import GM foods in spite of their lower costs (the result of higher yields and a reduced need for water and pesticides). Kenya has banned them altogether amid widespread malnutrition. No country has definite plans to grow Golden Rice, a crop engineered to deliver more vitamin A than spinach (rice normally has no vitamin A), even though vitamin A deficiency causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world. Globally, only a tenth of the world's cropland includes GM plants. Four countries—the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina—grow 90 percent of the planet's GM crops. Other Latin American countries are pushing away from the plants. And even in the U.S., voices decrying genetically modified foods are becoming louder. In 2016 the U.S. federal government passed a law requiring labeling of GM ingredients in food products, replacing GM-labeling laws in force or proposed in several dozen states. The fear fueling all this activity has a long history. The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, when the first GM crops reached the market, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, Prince Charles and a number of celebrity chefs took highly visible stands against them. Consumers in Europe became particularly alarmed: a survey conducted in 1997, for example, found that 69 percent of the Austrian public saw serious risks in GM foods, compared with only 14 percent of Americans. In Europe, skepticism about GM foods has long been bundled with other concerns, such as a resentment of American agribusiness. Whatever it is based on, however, the European attitude reverberates across the world, influencing policy in countries where GM crops could have tremendous benefits. “In Africa, they don't care what us savages in America are doing,” Zilberman says. “They look to Europe and see countries there rejecting GM, so they don't use it.” Forces fighting genetic modification in Europe have rallied support for “the precautionary principle,” which holds that given the kind of catastrophe that would emerge from loosing a toxic, invasive GM crop on the world, GM efforts should be shut down until the technology is proved absolutely safe. But as medical researchers know, nothing can really be “proved safe.” One can only fail to turn up significant risk after trying hard to find it—as is the case with GM crops. A clean record The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. Ordinary wheat has long been strictly a human-engineered plant; it could not exist outside of farms, because its seeds do not scatter. For some 60 years scientists have been using “mutagenic” techniques to scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, creating strains of wheat, rice, peanuts and pears that have become agricultural mainstays. The practice has inspired little objection from scientists or the public and has caused no known health problems. The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene (or a few of them) from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises. Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it. “We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it,” Goldberg says. “We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't.” And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years. They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. “When GM critics say that genes don't cross the species barrier in nature, that's just simple ignorance,” says Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. “Mother Nature does it all the time, and so do conventional plant breeders,” McHughen says. Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own? It is possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to—and even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. “We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years,” Goldberg says. In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in 2013 publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli–infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011. Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops. Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.C., takes pains to note that the center has no official stance, pro or con, with regard to genetically modifying food plants. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. “Current GM crops are safe to eat and can be grown safely in the environment,” he says. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences have all unreservedly backed GM crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats. Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view. Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. For example, a 1998 study by plant biochemist Árpád Pusztai, then at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, found that rats fed a GM potato suffered from stunted growth and immune system–related changes. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct. Similar stories abound. Most recently, a team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a researcher at the University of Caen Lower Normandy in France, found that rats eating a common type of GM corn contracted cancer at an alarmingly high rate. But Séralini has long been an anti-GM campaigner, and critics charged that in his study, he relied on a strain of rat that too easily develops tumors, did not use enough rats, did not include proper control groups and failed to report many details of the experiment, including how the analysis was performed. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. “If GM corn were that toxic, someone would have noticed by now,” McHughen says. “Séralini has been refuted by everyone who has cared to comment.” Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture. “This has nothing to do with science,” Goldberg says. “It's about ideology.” Former anti-GM activist Lynas agrees. He has gone as far as labeling the anti-GM crowd “explicitly an antiscience movement.” Persistent doubts Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them. And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. “It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things,” he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. There is also the phenomenon of “insertional mutagenesis,” Williams adds, in which the insertion of a gene ends up quieting the activity of nearby genes. True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens. Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it. These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. “You'd certainly find out if the result is that the plant doesn't grow very well,” Williams says. “But will you find the change if it results in the production of proteins with long-term effects on the health of the people eating it?” It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. And even Séralini, the scientist behind the study that found high cancer rates for GM-fed rats, has his defenders. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed. He says that as someone who runs drug-safety studies, he is well versed on what constitutes a good-quality animal toxicology study and that Séralini's makes the grade. He insists that the breed of rat in the study is commonly used in respected drug studies, typically in numbers no greater than in Séralini's study; that the methodology was standard; and that the details of the data analysis are irrelevant because the results were so striking. Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media. These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field. Says Williams: “Whether it's conscious or not, it's in their interest to promote this field, and they're not objective.” Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. “If it doesn't come out the right way,” he says, “you're going to get trashed.” There is evidence to support that charge. In 2009 Nature detailed the backlash to a reasonably solid study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA by researchers from Loyola University Chicago and the University of Notre Dame. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn. Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct. A way forward There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing. “We should be doing a better job with food oversight altogether,” he says. Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. “Ninety percent of the scientists I talk to assume that new GM plants are safety-tested the same way new drugs are by the FDA,” he says. “They absolutely aren't, and they absolutely should be.” Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. “Even under the current testing standards for GM crops, most conventionally bred crops wouldn't have made it to market,” McHughen says. “What's going to happen if we become even more strict?” That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages. This article was originally published with the title "Are Engineered Foods Evil?" in Scientific American 309, 3, 80-85 (September 2013) Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at www.springernature.com/us). Scientific American maintains a strict policy of editorial independence in reporting developments in science to our readers.

Besides, we are routinely exposed to—and even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. “We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years,” Goldberg says. In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in 2013 publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli–infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011. Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops. Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.C., takes pains to note that the center has no official stance, pro or con, with regard to genetically modifying food plants. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. “Current GM crops are safe to eat and can be grown safely in the environment,” he says.

yes

Biotechnology

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?

yes_statement

"genetically" modified foods are safe to eat. it is safe to eat "genetically" modified foods

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/is-it-safe-to-eat-gm-crops/

Is it safe to eat GM crops? | Royal Society

Is it safe to eat GM crops? Yes. There is no evidence that a crop is dangerous to eat just because it is GM. There could be risks associated with the specific new gene introduced, which is why each crop with a new characteristic introduced by GM is subject to close scrutiny. Since the first widespread commercialisation of GM produce 18 years ago there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption of any approved GM crop. Before any food produced using GM technology is permitted onto the market, a variety of tests have to be completed. The results from these tests, including results from animal feeding trials, are considered by the authorities responsible for determining the safety of each new GM product (see Q18). This makes new GM crop varieties at least as safe to eat as new non GM varieties, which are not tested in this way. There have been a few studies claiming damage to human or animal health from specific foods that have been developed using GM. The claims were not about the GM method itself, but about the specific gene introduced into the crop, or about agricultural practices associated with the crop, such as herbicide treatments. The statistical analysis and methodology of these studies have been challenged. All reliable evidence produced to date shows that currently available GM food is at least as safe to eat as non-GM food. An animal feeding trial of GM tomatoes modified to produce high levels of antioxidants showed the GM tomatoes reduced the levels of cancer. This is not because the tomatoes are GM, but rather because they produce antioxidants, which are known to reduce cancer.

Is it safe to eat GM crops? Yes. There is no evidence that a crop is dangerous to eat just because it is GM. There could be risks associated with the specific new gene introduced, which is why each crop with a new characteristic introduced by GM is subject to close scrutiny. Since the first widespread commercialisation of GM produce 18 years ago there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption of any approved GM crop. Before any food produced using GM technology is permitted onto the market, a variety of tests have to be completed. The results from these tests, including results from animal feeding trials, are considered by the authorities responsible for determining the safety of each new GM product (see Q18). This makes new GM crop varieties at least as safe to eat as new non GM varieties, which are not tested in this way. There have been a few studies claiming damage to human or animal health from specific foods that have been developed using GM. The claims were not about the GM method itself, but about the specific gene introduced into the crop, or about agricultural practices associated with the crop, such as herbicide treatments. The statistical analysis and methodology of these studies have been challenged. All reliable evidence produced to date shows that currently available GM food is at least as safe to eat as non-GM food. An animal feeding trial of GM tomatoes modified to produce high levels of antioxidants showed the GM tomatoes reduced the levels of cancer. This is not because the tomatoes are GM, but rather because they produce antioxidants, which are known to reduce cancer.

yes

Biotechnology

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?

yes_statement

"genetically" modified foods are safe to eat. it is safe to eat "genetically" modified foods

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/will-gmos-hurt-my-body/

Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public's Concerns and How ...

Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them by Megan L. Norris Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer. GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity. Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment. In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato [6]. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats’ health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals. Three years earlier, a separate group had found the same results for a GMO tomato and a GMO sweet pepper [7]. These researchers had split rats into four diet groups: non-GMO tomato, GMO tomato, non-GMO sweet pepper, and GMO sweet pepper. They fed the rats over 7,000 times the average human daily consumption of either GMO or non-GMO tomato or sweet pepper for 30 days and monitored their overall health. Finally, they carried out histopathology and again found no differences in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney, spleen, or reproductive organs of GMO versus non-GMO fed rats. Despite massive ingestion of GMO potato, tomato, or sweet pepper, these studies demonstrated no differences in the vitality or health of the animals, even at the microscopic level. Experiments like these on humans would be completely unethical. Fortunately, prior to these studies years of work have demonstrated that rodents, like mice and rats, are acceptable models for humans, meaning rodent responses to drugs, chemicals, and foods can predict human response. Rat feeding studies like these, in which rats are fed a potential toxic item and monitored for adverse effects, are considered both specific and sensitive for monitoring toxicity of foods and widely used in the food regulation industry [1]. The test of time: GMOs and their effect on our offspring Although scientists have been able to demonstrate that GMOs are not toxic to the animals that eat them, as described above and elsewhere, what about side effects being passed on to our next generations? To discern whether GMO crops affect fertility or embryos during gestation, a group from South Dakota State University again turned to studies on rats. In this case, the rats were eating a type of GMO corn, more commonly known as Bt corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a microbe that produces insecticidal endotoxin and has been used as a topical pesticide against insects since 1961 (see this article). To allow corn to directly generate this endotoxin, scientists introduced a gene from Bt into the genetic material (DNA) of corn. To address buildup of toxicity over time, this group monitored the GMO-eating rats not only for the lifetime of one generation, but also three additional generations. For each generation, they tracked the fertility of parents and compared the health of the embryos from parents that ate Bt corn to those with parents that did not [8]. Toxic effects can arise in many places and in many ways, but some organs are more susceptible to damage than others, and monitoring them is a good readout for other difficult-to-see effects. Testes are considered a particularly sensitive organ for toxicity tests because of the high degree of cell divisions and thus high susceptibility to cellular or molecular toxins. To examine the affect of Bt corn on testicular health, the researchers tracked testicular development in fetal, postnatal, pubertal, and adult rats for all four generations. The group found no change in testicular health or litter sizes in any generation. Likewise, ingestion by pregnant mothers had no effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development of her offspring. Other groups have monitored toxicity over time as well. For example, the group studying the bar GMO potato also wanted to see if organs and reproductive health were sensitive to GMOs over long exposure times [5]. To do this, they examined the fertility and gestation periods of GMO-eating mothers compared to non-GMO-eating mothers for five generations. They tracked animal body weight, bone, eye, and thymus development, and general retardation. Like the studies on Bt corn, in all cases, they found no significant differences between the GMO potato and non-GMO potato diets, suggesting that there is no buildup or inheritance of toxicity, even over multiple generations. Figure 1. Work from independent researchers has investigated various aspects of GMO safety, especially concerning consumer health and toxicity. Can GMOs change our genes? Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food. To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic. Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5]. A strong argument for GMO health safety After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources. Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University. Dr. “Read the Article Before You Say Anything” who do you think is funding Harvard? They don’t get a billion dollar endowment just from tuition fees. Perhaps you should read Dark Money before you say anything. Here’s what you need to understand: you will never truly know what’s “fake news” or not, as literally ANYTHING could be fake news due to make big businesses more wealthy, created by the Illuminati, be part of the programming of the Matrix, etc. It’s ultimately YOUR choice whether you believe something or not, whether it’s science, the government, religion, spaghetti gods, etc. If you decide to be skeptical, that’s your choice, and that’s fine. If you decide to believe university articles, that’s ok, too. Just, please, don’t present your opinions of what’s the “truth” as a “fact” or call other people stupid if they have a different opinion of what’s the “truth” than you. Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer. GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity. Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment. In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato [6]. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats’ health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals. Three years earlier, a separate group had found the same results for a GMO tomato and a GMO sweet pepper [7]. These researchers had split rats into four diet groups: non-GMO tomato, GMO tomato, non-GMO sweet pepper, and GMO sweet pepper. They fed the rats over 7,000 times the average human daily consumption of either GMO or non-GMO tomato or sweet pepper for 30 days and monitored their overall health. Finally, they carried out histopathology and again found no differences in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney, spleen, or reproductive organs of GMO versus non-GMO fed rats. Despite massive ingestion of GMO potato, tomato, or sweet pepper, these studies demonstrated no differences in the vitality or health of the animals, even at the microscopic level. Experiments like these on humans would be completely unethical. Fortunately, prior to these studies years of work have demonstrated that rodents, like mice and rats, are acceptable models for humans, meaning rodent responses to drugs, chemicals, and foods can predict human response. Rat feeding studies like these, in which rats are fed a potential toxic item and monitored for adverse effects, are considered both specific and sensitive for monitoring toxicity of foods and widely used in the food regulation industry [1]. The test of time: GMOs and their effect on our offspring Although scientists have been able to demonstrate that GMOs are not toxic to the animals that eat them, as described above and elsewhere, what about side effects being passed on to our next generations? To discern whether GMO crops affect fertility or embryos during gestation, a group from South Dakota State University again turned to studies on rats. In this case, the rats were eating a type of GMO corn, more commonly known as Bt corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a microbe that produces insecticidal endotoxin and has been used as a topical pesticide against insects since 1961 (see this article). To allow corn to directly generate this endotoxin, scientists introduced a gene from Bt into the genetic material (DNA) of corn. To address buildup of toxicity over time, this group monitored the GMO-eating rats not only for the lifetime of one generation, but also three additional generations. For each generation, they tracked the fertility of parents and compared the health of the embryos from parents that ate Bt corn to those with parents that did not [8]. Toxic effects can arise in many places and in many ways, but some organs are more susceptible to damage than others, and monitoring them is a good readout for other difficult-to-see effects. Testes are considered a particularly sensitive organ for toxicity tests because of the high degree of cell divisions and thus high susceptibility to cellular or molecular toxins. To examine the affect of Bt corn on testicular health, the researchers tracked testicular development in fetal, postnatal, pubertal, and adult rats for all four generations. The group found no change in testicular health or litter sizes in any generation. Likewise, ingestion by pregnant mothers had no effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development of her offspring. Other groups have monitored toxicity over time as well. For example, the group studying the bar GMO potato also wanted to see if organs and reproductive health were sensitive to GMOs over long exposure times [5]. To do this, they examined the fertility and gestation periods of GMO-eating mothers compared to non-GMO-eating mothers for five generations. They tracked animal body weight, bone, eye, and thymus development, and general retardation. Like the studies on Bt corn, in all cases, they found no significant differences between the GMO potato and non-GMO potato diets, suggesting that there is no buildup or inheritance of toxicity, even over multiple generations. Figure 1. Work from independent researchers has investigated various aspects of GMO safety, especially concerning consumer health and toxicity. Can GMOs change our genes? Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food. To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic. Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5]. A strong argument for GMO health safety After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources. Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University. This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food. “The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment.” This is the biggest problem with GMOs. It does things like protect the potato from herbicidal treatment, which will lead to increased herbicidal treatment of potatoes. That herbicidal treatment of potatoes will likely harm us. Alas, maybe we can become genetically modified so we, like the potato, can detoxify herbicides! Herbicides like ROUNDUP (glyphosate)! “Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide. It is a broad spectrum herbicide and its agricultural uses increased considerably after the development of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified (GM) varieties. Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic.” Yeah sorry, I’m gonna have to agree with Mason on this one. Can you get me something from anywhere that doesn’t end in a “.com” or without taking something out of context to TRY and prove a point? -Peer reviewed -Government website….. that would “.gov” I mean anything! P.s. Learn how to Cite and Reference, please. Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, (the secularists in the government, and other secularists/ man-made, worldly knowledge or wisdom) and maketh flesh (the government or other humanist and antichrist ideology or human strength) his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. 6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. 7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose Hope the LORD is. 8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see (suffer) when heat (scorching heat) cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful (anxious) in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. 9 The (human) heart is deceitful (including self-deception) above all things, and desperately wicked: (sinful) who can know it? 10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to the fruit of his doings. Same Book, Chapter 1:4 Then the Word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I (The LORD God of Israel: the Creator of Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that therein dwells) formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I (God the LORD) sanctified (set thee apart for Myself) thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. 6 Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. 7 But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. 8 Be not afraid of their faces; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD. 9 Then the LORD put forth His Hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put My Words in thy mouth. 10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil (sin and the abomination) good, (Marxism/Socialism/Communism; the LGBTQ AGENDA; U.S. Citizens and taxpayers forced to support illegal aliens; the government sanctioning of lawlessness and of defunding of their Police officers; government Officials refusing to prosecute the lawless terrorists groups like ANTIFA and BLM as well as the illegal immigrants who are gang members! and other criminals; including corrupt officials or former government officials such as Hillary Clinton, and the Obama Administration as well as his evil and corrupt deep State officials who continued into the Trump Administration; and to do everything they could to bring down the Trump Administration by Corrupt and Unconstitutional means!) and good (innocent people and also Godly, Bible-believing, Born-again Christians and Messianic Jews who are Bible-believing, Born-again followers of Jesus their Messiah; (Yeshua HaMashiach) evil; that put darkness (Satan’s will and works) for Light, (that which is good and righteous in the sight of the LORD God of Israel and His Holy Word); and light for darkness; ( Satan’s followers present good as evil, and sin as if it were right); that put bitter for sweet, and sweet (the Word of the Living God: which leads us to true salvation and Eternal Life in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior); for bitter! ( sin which is celebrated by the ungodly; the ungodly and unsaved world present God’s Holy Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word as though it was an evil and hateful document that only fools who are racist and homophobic believe! They present God’s Holy Word and we who believe in His Word as evil; they are sadly deceiving their own selves! This prophecy is come to pass in our day!! 21 Woe unto them that are wise (with the world’s wisdom) in their own eyes, (conceited and deceived by their own sinful pride and arrogance), and prudent in their own sight! (Again, they are self-deluded by their arrogance and pride, trusting in man’s worldly knowledge, not the LORD’S WISDOM) 22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle (mix) strong drink; (alcoholic liquor); 23 Which justify the wicked for reward (bribe) and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! (steal his honour). 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust; because they have cast away the Law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the Word of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters; they have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why would ye be stricken any more? Ye will revolt more and more; the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. (weak) 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. 7 Your Country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers (illegal aliens) devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. (illegal aliens). 8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. 9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorah. 10 Hear the Word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the Law of our God, ye people of Gomorah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before Me, Who hath required this at your hand, to tread My courts? 13 Bring no more vain (futile) oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts My Soul hateth: they are a trouble unto Me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine Eyes from you; yeah, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of (innocent) blood. (You have the murder of the innocent unborn children on your hands, and your hatred of those who believe in Me and in My Holy Word: hatred =murder of those who trust in Me and who believe My Word); 16 Wash you, make you clean; (Repent of all your sins, believe the Gospel of the Jewish Messiah: Yeshua HaMashiach, and follow Him for ever; and surrender to the Will of God and obey His Word by the power of the Holy Spirit! from Genesis 1:1———– Revelation 22:21KJV) put away the evil (sin) of your doings (sinful lifestyle) from before Mine Eyes; Cease to do evil. (Stop living in your sinful lifestyle; and stop making excuses for your sin and iniquities! Stop celebrating your sinful lifestyle, and stop advocating for a person’s so-called right to live in sin; and stop supporting laws and policies that defend those sins!!); 18 Come now, let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be like scarlet (red), they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; 20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the Mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. Matthew 4:4 But He[ (Yeshua HaMashiach) Jesus Christ] answered and said, It is Written, Man shall not live by bread (physical food for the physical body) alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is Written again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for It is Written, thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. 19 And He saith unto them, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed Him! Hi Mitch, I’d like to piont out a flaw in your comment despite it being quite a bit since. If you check the sources, all but four are government cites. The four that are not government cites are 3, 4, 5, and 7. The third is an article posted by another school, the Center for Environmental Risk, so I’d assume anything on their website should be mostly true at least, but I understand any doubt as I myself am unable to find the quoted article. The fourth is not explicitly stated as having any schooling on the matters and is mostlikely someone against GMOs or atleast is quouted for the reported concern citizens have. The fith is used as a reference for the commonly misinforming study on how rats are negatively affected by GMOs. Lastly, the seventh is referenceing the study by multiple different scientest (all working at Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences), and is simply a synopsis of their findings. I’d also like to advise against passive agressivley asking a student to, quote “learn how to Cite and Refference, please”, as it may hurt their moral. If you must crituqe, at least do it in a positive manner, maybe give advice on it? It’s rather unbecoming of you. I do not intend to come off as angry, attacking, or anything of the sort. However, I do find it insulting that’d youd dismiss this authors hard work with your own incompetince. If you wish to make an argument against something or someone, make sure you have the evidence to back it. I do not appreciate you missinforming anyone who sees your comment into thinking that none of their, for lack of better words, evidence is propper when, compared to your lack thereof, is plenty. “As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.” not saying that I agree or disagree but history has shown complicity from science and governments in covering up or in the misdirection of findings from research that is properly conducted relating to many industries; particularly in health related ones. In order for GMO’s to even begin to break into the market they had to appeal to governments that GMO’s would resolve some large humanitarian issues around starvation/disease/nutrition in third world countries. It didn’t take long for it to change focus; biofuels, largely take priority over food (even now) and what gmo food is grown, a significant amount of it is for animal food. So the humanitarian issues are still there. Commercial interests have long trumped the safety and health of the common people (whether there are risks or not). there has been some interesting ideas being lobbied to governments around making it harder and harder for people to obtain seeds/plants that aren’t controlled by these companies. Food and water are the easiest ways of controlling the masses and conservative governments are certainly keen for that. The question isn’t just about whether gmo’s have/not any health risks, it’s also about can it be used to control us? will prices be used to control us? how will it all work commercially/legally/etc. The point of herbicides is to kill the weeds in fields where potatoes are grown not kill the potatoes. Herbicide resistance in potatoes will make them hardier when chemicals are used so they don’t just die and more potatoes are yielded. Herbicide resistance in potatoes will have no effect on the amount that is applied. I think it would “behoove” you some ag experience and some basic knowledge of crops and herbicides before you make comments as such. j, I think you misunderstand. It’s not the hardiness of the potatoes that is a problem, it’s that pesticide proof potatoes will encourage farmers to use more pesticides than they usually would on non-pesticide potatoes. With non-GMO potatoes, the potatoes would die with when given too much pesticide. GMO potatoes (pesticide proof) would be fine when given too much pesticide, so with GMO potatoes, farmers will generally use more pesticide. Pesticide can contaminate many things and has a lot of effects that are bad for the environment. In essence, GMOs increase pesticide use and pesticide use is harmful to the environment. A note to everyone else concerning the authenticity of the article Cynthia provided: the site ScienceDirect is a publishing house for scientific articles, and does not write the articles themselves. According to what I have read, the majority of the articles found there are legitimate and scientific. The actual article is more a warning of possible dangers, and a call for more research on the topic than an actual argument. I agree. Look at the early research on ROUNDUP (glyphosate) and it was determined to be safe. But constant exposure over time (decades) has now shown it to be a real big problem. All of the biological factors mysterious be taken into consideration the most important in this case being concentration (all of us eat many foods with varying levels of chemicals “believed to be non- toxic) and time. What will be the future of our health after decades of exposure to the GMOs? Chemical food additives are also a concern. Since the introduction of processed foods, cancer rates have exploded over time. Is there a connection? I don’t want to take the chance to find out with my body. I totally agreed. Many so called scientist paid by the oil industry has denied for decades Global Warming. This article is ridiculous. Several countries in Europe has banned GMO from food and even for cotton crops that are used to make clothes. I guess they (France, Spain, Sweden) banned GMO’s because they are harmful, right. I have followed a diet of organic food for almost two years and I can report the following: A cyst on my right breast has disappeared . I am going back to a healthy weight with well balanced hormones. I lost 20 pounds. Diabetics Type 2 has been solved (no insulin resistance). If I eat a lot of calories I gain weight that I can lose back easily in two or three days of eating low calorie dishes. My metabolism is working as it should be. I have not eat any GMO since a long time. These are my sources of food: Wild fish Grass feed cow or bison (not any other animal) Organic vegetables (low glycemic index) Organic fruits (low sugar as berries) Organic nuts Organic Almond milk Organic Cheese only from brands that grow their own cows and do not use any kind of hormones to growth (or fatten). Guys, for one article that says that GMO is safe, you will find 5-10 articles that are documented and will tell you exactly the opposite. Do your research and use credible sources. There are many interest involved in the industry. You know that Whole Foods targeted segment is college graduates, health conscious people? Why is that educated people will chose to eat organic and non GMO food? Think about it and look for yourself. I agree with you! Our medical schools and big pharmaceutical industry and likely Monsanto fund many of these studies and schools. I just read a Havard Review saying Coconut oil was not heart healthy! Listen to Sally Fallon Morell’s 2016 Vermont Seminar on YouTube. Part 2 is about bad soy, The Oiling of America and the CHOLESTEROL MYTH. Part 1 is the common sense part on Weston Price Foundation research of long ago and recently, showing Native Cultures ate lots of free range meats and cheeses and non polluted fish, veggies and fruit, fermented soy only and many soaked grains and other organic fermented foods!! They had perfect bones and teeth! Cholesterol is protective and the fat solubility of key vitamins is IGNORED by many! Natives Cultures way back had no cancer and no to very little heart disease. We evolved from Apes eating the big cats who ate our babies! All cultures ate some form of animal products! They were raw, free range and fed/ate organic food/grass! Rancid oils cause oxidation of cholesterol and plaque, thus heart disease. Safe oils to cook or bake with are grass fed LARD, COCONUT OIL, OLIVE OIL OR GRASS FED BUTTER! It’s called the French Paradox but the French are eating non Traditional foods now too! It’s all about profit and even healthfood stores sell bad oils that cause heart DISEASE in many products tho most are non GMO at least! I’m so ashamed of Havard and other schools and our Gov on Nutrition. It’s common sense and backed by other studies. Sally explains how they alter statistical time segments to make graphs appear in favor of old pet theories. GMOs & Veganism is the genocide of our youth and makes many elderly sick! Just as factory farm meat makes us ill. All while others profit. Listen to 2016 entire conference before judging! Otherwise Havard and other schools are mostly informed! I love my high cholesterol and coconut milk or raw dairy milk, but need more $ to stick with this real food diet. Bad oils are CHEAP! We did Not evolve from any other creature! You have been sold the biggest lie of the 19th to the 21st century! There is absolutely No (Zero) proof of any creature turning into another creature in the fossil record! It takes alot more faith to believe in the lie of evolution than the Truth of the Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of the Living God!! The Holy Bible is absolutely Truth! 2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection (LGBTQ AGENDA), trucebreakers, false accusers, (leftists accusing Bible-believing, Born-again believers in Jesus Christ of crimes, racism, and many other false accusations because we don’t celebrate their sinful lifestyles); incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good. 4 Traitors, heady (full of themselves), highminded (arrogant), lovers of pleasures (hedonism) more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness (man-made religion, of which there are thousands or more, including Humanism and Evolution: Atheism, Global Warming, aka. Global Climate Change, etc. there are many, many multiple man-made religions that deny the One True God and Creator of the Heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that therein dwells: the LORD God of Israel and the only begotten Son of God: Jesus Christ! Most every religion is man-made, and denies the One True God! Or they pervert or twist the Word of God to attempt to make it appear to say what they want it to, rather than submitting themselves to Him and His Will, and thus, surrendering to the Truth of God’s Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word; and the leading of the Holy Spirit!!!) but denying the power thereof; from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with various lusts. 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the Truth. men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men (and women) and seducers shall wax (grow slowly) worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom though hast learned them. 15 And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ (Messiah) Jesus. (Yeshua) 16 All Scripture (the Holy Bible only, not any other religious book!!) is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, (spiritually mature) throughly furnished unto all good works. 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall judge the quick (living) and the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom; 2 Preach the Word (of God); be instant (ready) in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (giving them a feel-good message instead of the Truth of God’s Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word: the Holy Bible) 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the Truth, (the Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of the Living God: the Holy Bible) and shall be turned unto fables. (falsehoods such evolution, global warming/global climate change, humanism, Islamism, Atheism, globalism, Roman Catholocism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Totalitarianism, LGBTQ AGENDAism, leftism, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrianism, newageism, Mormonism, Jehoveh’s Witnesses, and many, many other false religions, cults and doctrines that lead people to eternal destruction!!! there is no jesus!!! where is he when he lets children suffer from a meriad of different things. i’m sorry i was raised catholic, alter boy all that bull shit. then i realized its all bull shit. all loveing , all powerful. just more bull shit!!! where is your loveing god??? wake up bible thumper to reality, there is no jesus – bah-jesus!!!!! To Cindy Jantz…You seem like a good person…you really should read the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Book of Mormon, Buddhist scriptures, Book of Arda Viraf (Zoroastrian scriptures), and Quran in their entireties… I’ll bet you your faith in the One God, the Maker of the Universe will increase. Right now you probably don’t understand why God says, Begone you evildoers, I never knew ye…(in response to a “missionary” saying , “Didn’t we cast out many demons and perform many miracles in Your Name?”), n’est-ce pas? Ummmmm. A. Where did evolution come from? This article seemed to imply it, (it is from Harvard so i’m not surprised at all.) but if you are going to try to talk about macroevolution vs. creation, this isn’t really the best place to do it. B. Attempting to prove the Bible to be true, by using the Bible, to people who don’t trust the Bible to be true, most of the time will only encourage exactly what just happened. A better way may be using things agreed upon by most people and from their using it to give make your point. Trust me I also love to rant, and talk about how i know what i’m talking about, and that i’m always right, and that everyone else is stupid. You want to know how many times it has worked? 0. Though yes, you may be able to provide enough evidence to make it seem rediculous that anybody would believe in evolution, but when doing so, i would encourage you to do it in a humble, loving manner (again one of my personal greatest struggles.). (Ephesians 4 (more particularly v.15 but it all applies)). And in the end nobody can prove who or what actually made the universe because nobody was there when it happened. I just finished microbiology and also felt the same way about GMO’s until listening to the science behind it. Unfortunately not everyone even here in American and especially third world countries can afford to eat organic. Even organic farmers have said there is not enough land or money to farm organically and feed the world. He had us watch Food Evolution which became very eye opening. You should check it out. Firstly in the last part simply because cost isn’t a problem so they can afford to get what they wish. I have tried both GMO and non-GMO versions of products and there really isn’t that much of a difference. GMO tend to be modified to have more of certain vitamins. Different bodies react differently to different foods why some people have tried keto diets and are unaffected simply b/c their body does not lose weight on a keto diet. So GMO may affect people differently. That is the most likely reason why you are losing weight. Do you really think that you are God? If so, you are very deceived, and very arrogant! Repent of your sins and believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Living God! That He left His Home in Glory (the third Heaven), to come into His Own creation, and He was God wrapped in human flesh; He came to die in our place! To be our sin-sacrifice! He paid our sin-debt in-full on the Cross, was placed in a rich man’s tomb; and He was Risen on the third day in fulfillment of the Scriptures Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1—9, 10–12; 7:14-16; 9:6; Micah 9:9; Psalm 22:1—–31; 9:1-2, 3-4, 5——11, 12-13, 14—-19, 20-22, 23, 24-26, 27; Miss, do you think the possible reason your body is healthier is because you have began to eat healthier rather than the lack of GMO foods in your diet. I mean to say this is the nicest way possible. It is a bit of a slippery slope to say that just cutting out GMO foods from your diet solved all your major health problems. If we were to look at this scientifically, you do not to test anything. You try a new diet, it works, and immediately assume it was GMO that caused all your health problems. If you really wanted to make logical argument, you should create three diets, one focused around GMO, one with both GMO foods and non-GMO foods, and a diet focused around non-GMO food. You should also determine for how long you would try each diet, at least a couple months to allow the body to change, and track your weight, overall health, mood, and any other factors. This is just my opinion though, but I think this would make you argument more compelling. Since I can’t modify my comments, I have to make a new one. Here’s an analysis of 76 studies that say that GMO corn has a higher yield and is safer: https://www.santannapisa.it/sites/default/files/pellegrino_et_al.2018.pdf Now you have to find me at the very least 380 articles that say otherwise. While you’re at it, check the multiple sources in this Kurzgasagt video (there’s 41 credible sources): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4 And look! The number of articles you have to find now to prove your point just increased to 465! Also, since when is Harvard not a credible source? While you look for this obscure amount of articles just to disprove one of the biggest research sites, I’m going to disprove some common theories: No, DNA from GMO plants absolutely cannot transfer to our body. You’d know that if you went to biology class in primary school. Glyphosate resistant crops won’t encourage farmers to use more herbicides. It’s illogical; why would you want to spray your field with more herbicides when you have crops that don’t need that much of it? That’s illogical and doesn’t make sense at all. I’d be happy to see your attempt at providing credible sources. Any other questions? Any other myths you want disproven? expo, I agree completely with you. This entire section is based off the point that HARVARD isn’t a credible source?! Why do people trust reddit threads with 0 citations more than Harvard and FDA studies repeated countless times?? Seriously guys, pay attention in middle school when your teacher tells you about credible sources. P.S. Kurzgasagt is my life 😛 I don’t believe any leftist college like Harvard has any claim to integrity or credibility! Only the Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of the Living God is Truth! Man’s word is usually worthless! The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah speaking the Word of the LORD in Jeremiah 17:9 The (human) heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm (strength), and whose heart departeth from the LORD. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made (created) that was made. (created). 4 In Him was Life; and the Life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through Him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made (Created) by Him, and the world knew Him not. 11 He came unto His Own, and His Own received Him not. 12 But as many received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name: 13 Which were born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the (Holy) Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. (Jesus Christ) 33 And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, (Jesus Christ) the Same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed (poured into the mold of this evil world’s system of antichrist and ungodliness) to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, Will of God. 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, (like evolution, atheism, global warming/global climate change agenda, globalism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Islamism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Newageism, Roman Catholocism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other false religions, cults, and false prophets and doctrines) when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His Majesty. 17 For He (Jesus Christ the Son of God) received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a Voice to Him from the Excellent Glory, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. 18 And this Voice which came from Heaven we heard, when we were with Him (Jesus Christ) in the Holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure Word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a Light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the Day Star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily (secretly) shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the Way of Truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation (vile and abominable lifestyles) of the wicked: (sodomites) 8 (For that righteous man [Lot] dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful [wicked and lewd acts] deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the Godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children; 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity; the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbade the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions (sin/bondage to sin) of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the Way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the Holy Commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb. The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken by the Holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of His (Jesus Christ’s) coming? (Return) for since the fathers fell asleep (died), all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation (conduct/lifestyle) and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, (sin) and blameless. 15 And account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the Wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in Grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and for ever, Amen. @expo You said “Glyphosate resistant crops won’t encourage farmers to use more herbicides. It’s illogical; why would you want to spray your field with more herbicides when you have crops that don’t need that much of it? That’s illogical and doesn’t make sense at all. ” Crops were made ‘glyphosate resistant’ BECAUSE glyphosate is sprayed(heavily) on mature crops to ripen / dessicate them for harvesting. Glyphosate usage increased from approx 50 million pounds in 1998 to over 250 million pounds in 2017 and with the increased planting of GMO’s that number continues to increase exponentially. Corrupt people are everywhere Harvard, Govt, regulatory agencies – money is available to compel them to turn a blind eye to truth. Hhhmmmmm I am still a little unsure how eating healthy made you healthier? If you had eaten all of those things but non-organic the results would be the same. GMOs not being safe is a new concept for me. I always knew there were folks that believed it, but I was astonished by the sheer amount of blatant ignorance of information that exists. GMOs do not cause issues, of course they may in the future when new ones are developed. But as a whole of what we have now, are not harmful. They are government regulated, and safe for consumption. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food. To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic. Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5]. A strong argument for GMO health safety After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources. Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University. This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food. Research outcomes, conclusions, are determined by the integrity of unbiased minds. Do not think those who claim GMOs are perfectly healthy are people of Integrity. How do we the people determine this? When Mon-satan-o said, “We will not lose one penny”, it is enough to know their business practices place profits above people. So if GMO is so safe to consume, then WHY do we see more and more food labels screaming “NON GMO”??? What’s the point of non gmo huh?? I’ve studied chemistry back in university for 5 years, I don’t work in that field though, but 1 of the things I remember : eating GMO can affect your future generations, can cause mutations etc. So if you are planning on having children- stay away from gmo. No one on the 1st pages of Google search will tell us that gmo is bad for you- why would they damage giant corporations like Monsanto- too much money, way more important than public health. My advice: always read ingredients- if there’s something hard to pronounce, stay away from it. GMO’s are destroying the planet and all living things on it. PERIOD. There’s no ifs ands or buts. People need to wake up and stop trying to justify food made by “engineers.” This is the problem with trying to find information on the internet for most folks… Not sure if I missed the answer to this here: is there a good explanation for the mentioned toxicity reports from the early anti-GMO research? Or does one have to just weigh the evidence of the body of work that contradicts them, as done here? Good question Brian, and this is one of the greatest hurdles to understanding the truth and falsehoods surrounding the topic. There are a few issues: 1.) Many of the “studies” citing GMO toxicity are not actual scientific studies, but anecdotes experienced by someone, almost always not in a research setting. However these are often referred to in blogs or articles as “studies” 2.) In the case of a peer-reviewed study finding GMOs to be toxic, like the toxic-potato I mention here, it has repeatedly turned out that the work was flawed, poorly carried out and rejected by the scientific community for being bad science. Often a quick google search will reveal this. 3.) The best way, and admittedly most time-consuming, to discern the truth is just as you said, be informed of all the experiments, their quality, and weigh the results. That is what I have attempted to do here, and it turns out that when only rigorous experiments are examined, they are actually all in agreement. No acceptable scientific study has yet found toxic effects from a GMO. Wish I had seen this in 2015. Megan, unless I missed it, there was no mention of other ‘organs’ such as the gut. Not the stomach- but the gut..the colon. In your research did you come across widely published scientific proof where a University in California found that a percentage of school-aged children had GMO’s actually in the gut of the child…and I don’t mean in some GMO food the child had consumed, I mean actually adhered in the lining of the gut? You might want to talk with specialists in the area of colorectal surgery. Ask them if they are finding that more and more people under the age of 19 are suddenly popping up with gut problems so horrible (as in a destroyed colon- the entire colon) that the entire gut can not be treated due to the fact that by the time the ‘problem’ manifests to the point of bleeding, it is too late and the entire colon has to be removed or it will burst and kill the individual. There is no margin, no years of gut problems such as colitis or even Chrones- just a sudden need to remove a colon that looks like raw hamburger. This is exactly what my son’s colorectal surgeon said to us….and among his colleagues, one suspect is the consumption of GMO foods. In fact, they have find no other reason thus far. My son went from 185 to 120 six weeks later. He had 4 surgeries and nearly died twice and his heart stopped once on the table- these events were due to the condition he was in. He was robbed of 1 1/2 years of his life due to the surgeries. His hair still has not grown back (3 years later) and at this point he is 21 years old. Not a very picture, is it? I believe one mistake you made is that you did not look for (or find) research done on the ENTIRE body. It appears the information you found was for most organs but certainly not all. You’re young, you’ll learn, but in the mean time don’t lead people down a path pointing to the ‘safety’ of GMO’s. I’m not saying GMO’s are or are not safe, but I am saying at this point the question is ‘WHY’? Why eat something that isn’t necessary to eat (organics can be found and are coming down in price), why purposely eat something that you know has been grown at least with pesticides sprayed on it? What’s the reason…why would people even *want* to do that? It certainly doesn’t taste better, and the ground isn’t allowed to rest using GMO seeds, nor does the GMO (or what’s sprayed on it) nourish the ground…so WHY? Hi! Can you provide the source from the “widely published scientific proof” from “a University in California” that you mentioned? I would love to read it and maybe even write a follow up to this article about it. Thanks! Also–FYI there are plenty of benefits of GMOs that answer your question of why we allow them. Including reducing pesticides when compared to non-GMO conventional agriculture, reducing tilling, and hopefully in the future making crops more resistant to environmental disaster and less destructive to the planet. I’d recommend checking out the rest of our special edition (see link at the bottom of this page)! Plants aren’t destructive to the planet, it is the way they are raised that promotes destruction. Agribusinesses who unsustainably farm, and overuse pesticides have lead to the requirement for GMO crops and they have largely contributed to environmental damage. It’s a never ending cycle and GMO products are not the solution, merely a quick fix. If natural alternatives were promoted, farms were treated like organisms and not businesses, and sustainable methods were priority this discussion would not be necessary. I like my food from the earth, with its DNA pure, the way it was intended to be. Also, if a crop is altered to produce its own pesticides, and the claim is that with GMO crops you are now spraying less pesticides doesn’t the total pesticide count, whether produced internally or applied externally, still add up to non-GMO conventional agriculture? First, farming itself can be destructive to the plant! Tilling (both organic and conventional!) can cause fertilizer runoff into our water sources, conventional agriculture still uses pesticides. Plants themselves aren’t usually bad for the environment, but growing them in huge quantities like we do to be able to feed the world’s ever-growing population can be. I’m not saying GMOs are perfect. They have their environmental flaws, like the creation of super weeds (see our article on glyphosphate resistant crops in this issue). I’m just saying that GMOs CAN have benefits ESPECIALLY if we learn from our mistakes with first generation GMOs and do better to fix their flaws next time. The population is growing, climate change is happening, and science–specifically genetic engineering–can help us grow food more sustainably in light of these things. Did you hear about the GMO rice that produces 43% more grain and emits 97% less methane (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/feeding-the-world/)? Therefore helping to both feed more people AND have less environmental impact! This kind of thing speaks to the potential of genetic engineering and the kind of progress that people are stopping by outright rejecting all GMO technology. Yes GMOs we have now have their issues, but genetic engineering is NOT inherently bad. Also, GR GMOs don’t produce pesticide. They are resistant to pesticide. One form of GMOs produces insecticide (Bt–we have an article on that in this edition, too, if you’re interested!), but it’s actually the same insecticide that is used by organic farmers (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/), and I believe there is evidence that the consumer has less exposure to the insecticide in the GM version than when it’s applied directly to plants. A study of these two types of crops did find that these crops allowed for a 36.9% reduction in pesticide use (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629)! Also, glypohsophate, which is used on GR crops is toxic, but less toxic than other pesticides used on conventional crops (see our article on pesticides). Given that there is little to no evidence of health impacts of eating GMOs (as in this article) and a potential to help solve a major problem our world faces in the future (climate change, feeding a growing population), I just think that we should give GMOs the chance to help us, as long as they’re properly regulated and researched. This article is completely biased. There have been no long term studies regarding this issue so how can you claim that GMOs are safe off a three month trial done on rats? Children in the United States are getting sicker and sicker with an increase in allergies, gluten intolerance, intestinal inflammation, and more. I think it is such a shame that Harvard is teaching students to discredit any research that would result in a loss of profits for said companies involved in the making and distribution of GMOs. These companies only care about their profits and do not care about the health of all human beings. Why is it that so many presidents eat organic? Why is it that so many have their own garden full of fresh vegetables and fruit? If GMOs were safe to eat and the government wants the American people to eat it then why wouldn’t the president and his family eat them? Why did Michelle Obama change our children’s lunches into complete garbage? If she eats organic, why would she not put organic food in schools? I think it is sickening that people get paid to lie about what is going on in the world. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. One day you all will have to answer to God for your part in the destruction of the human race. Please cite your source! It is true that the use of glyphosate has increased, but there are many types of pesticides, many of which are far more toxic than glyphosate, and if you look at OVERALL pesticide use, it has decreased, according to the sources I have read. (Also, as far as I’m aware, glyphosphate is the only pesticide for which there is a resistance gene currently used in commercial agriculture). That’s horrible. Your son has my sympathy. I’m not a doctor but I do have a Bachelor’s in biology and I agree that GMOs may still be the cause of your son’s disease. Let me use an analogy. Asbestos causes mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer. Most people need to inhale a lot of asbestos to get this cancer but a small percentage only need a relatively small exposure to become sick. Your son could be similarly part of a unique minority unfortunately predisposed to become sick. Animal models of human disease rarely discover these groups of people in society. We only know of mesothelioma because so many actual people got cancer working with asbestos. Although, it was really only a small percentage of thousands, maybe millions, working with asbestos. If we consider your son might be uniquely predisposed, along with the fact that the studies were done on a different species than human, and using GMO crop that humans rarely eat, (GMO soy would have been more appropriate) reasonable doubt about the safety of GMO’s still exist. I am responding to the comment that use of pesticides has increased 15 fold with the advent of GMO’s. I sell pesticides to farmers for a living. My sales of pesticides per acre of crop are down about 40% since the advent of GMO’s. I have trouble seeing how that translates into a 15 fold increase. You are not a doctor. And if you do have a degree in biology, you should know that correlation does not equate to causation. All the “evidence” “proving” that GMOs are dangerous are causational patterns. A variety of factors are at play here! You need a peer-reviewed experiment to prove anything in the sciences. The only studies showing harm are pay-for-play journals that are debunked as soon as journalists sensationalize the junk findings. You were way too kind in your reply to this obvious pile of horse manure (organic of course). Can anyone explain how a human body could lose 65 pounds in 6 weeks as this person claimed? While it has been suggested to me that I could lose ten pounds of ugly fat instantly by cutting my head off, all the websites claiming 20 pound losses in an hour or 24 hours or 40 pounds in two days are blatant scams. Colon removal would only involve a few pounds unless it has that twelve pounds of undigested meat that inhabits the fantasies of organic blog trolls. At 185 pounds extreme obesity with water retention issues wasn’t involved. Being hospitalized extreme exercise couldn’t have aided in the loss. My BS detector pegged Red Line on this one.My question to this woman is why are you spending your time spreading malicious nonsense on the Internet. Most of us have already heeded Abraham Lincoln’s advice to not believe everything we read on the Internet, so you are wasting your time. On the other hand, thank you for your reasoned approach. As a recovering extreme organic gardener I wish I had access to this kind of info many decades ago when I went off the rails. That said, practicing organic is good for you and the environment in many ways. Did you ever get a second opinion? Id raise my eyebrows at any doctor who would outright blame GMOs for such an extreme illness. How does he know your son does not have a genetic disorder that caused him to need those surgeries? Obviously your family history and genetic maps are NONE of my business, but its good for you to know. Ive never head of a colon needing to be removed to prevent “bursting.” Its a lumen-ous organ with two openings. Organs that burst are lumens with one opening, such as an appendix or uterus. Its always good to get second opinions, especially when your doctor jumps to such a wild conclusion with no other cases to back it up. After reading what you wrote, i think he confused you or you did not understand what he was saying. I hope your son finds health again soon, from the bottom of my heart. If i were you id be scrutinizing that doc! I am sorry for the pain of your child’s condition, but it’s pure specuilation and grasping for a reason to blame it on GMOs. “and I don’t mean in some GMO food the child had consumed, I mean actually adhered in the lining of the gut” There is no such thing as a “GMO” so there would be no way a “GMO” could adhere to anything. “that the entire gut cannot be treated due to the fact that by the time the ‘problem’ manifests to the point of bleeding, it is too late and the entire colon has to be removed or it will burst and kill the individual” The medical condition you describe has no diagnosis I could find or that I know of. The colon is not a closed organ nor can it be closed into a vessel by inflammation and therefore cannot “burst” under any conditions. Perhaps you are talking about the appendix? Many people in your situation, with no diagnosis for what has occurred, grasp at any possible cause and often find one that is as mysterious as the original illness. Rarely if ever is that speculation the cause. You’re worse than a anti-vac GMO’s are literally the same as cross-breed plants, or even cross-bred animals.Are dogs also toxic for the environment?How about cows?How about pigs?How about all of the food that you eat on a daily basis?It might be non-GMO but it’s still altered genetically by humans.I find it silly people are still trying to argue that GMO’s are dangerous or toxic, yet have no backing evidence that isn’t old and biased. This was such a heartbreaking testament. I’m sorry to hear about what your son and your family went/is going through. I myself have a child who is suffering with a tic disorder which no one can really help him with but a chiropractor trained in Nutrition Response Testing and applied Kinesiology determined that his Thyroid as well as his small intestines are burdened by GMO toxicity. Who knows the truth about GMOs but you’re certainly right, why not avoid it if you can. It seems that more and more the general public’s health is declining and conditions, ailments and diseases that used to be rare are becoming more and more the norm. Could it be our diet? Thanks for sharing Kayla, I very much agree with you. Plants are not destructive if anything they’re the ones going to save this plant from all the horrible things going on, but people are to close-minded to believe this. And what really annoys me is when people claim that ‘making crops more resistant to environmental disaster and less destructive to the planet’, well quite frankly that is absolute bs. Because if scientists and researchers where actually able to spend their time and funds creating an all natural fertiliser and herbicide then we might actually see some success and less of an impact on the soils, water ways and livestock in surrounding areas. The main problem with this is that we have huge corporations like Monsanto, who have too much ‘pride’ and are so focused on ruining people’s business’ and livelihoods, that they would never even consider making a good change that would somewhat benefit people and the environment, and if this was suggested they would sue them for everything that they’ve ever known. This is an extremely messed up mindset and society, and I can most defiantly say that GMOs really do have a considerable effect as my entire family (including myself) have experienced this mainly in the form of allergies. Good point! Also see how bad cheap oils in almost everything, even healthfood wreck havock. Sally Fallon Morell 2016 Vermont Conference part 2 then part 1 on YouTube! Part 1 is the Native Cultures research and common sense (not lab rat tests) comes into play here. Part 2 on Cholesterol myths, bad soy plus!! Long but worth listening to! One doctor said lectins in tomatoes, wheat, eggplant and beans cause leaky gut! GMOs don’t help either ! Thanks!! I would comment that some of the studies sourced for this article are flawed. For example, the “Multigeneration reproductive and developmental toxicity study of bar gene inserted into genetically modified potato on rats”, uses 5% GMO potato in the group fed GMOs to test its toxicity. This is irrelevant to things like corn, where 70%+ of the corn in the US is GMO corn and so our diet, assuming randomized source of corn, will on average have 70%+ GMO in it. I don’t know the numbers for potatoes, but I would be willing to bet that there is more than 5% of our diet of potato is GMO, so the study doesn’t reflect real consumption and would thus not show a real reflection of what are called ‘anecdotal’ evidence. When a farmer is giving feed to his cattle, he is not sitting there measuring out 5% GMO and the rest non-GMO feed for his animals. Furthermore, studies of anything less at least half the life span of the test animal are not useful in predicting long term affects and toxic accumulation — which is what we really care about since people are not slaughtered for food at a few years into their lifespan. The argument that these studies do prove its safe rely on the sort of logic that the tobacco industry has used for years to try to hid that cigarettes deliver carcinogens to the consumer and they may not immediately kill you, but they are not good for you either. Thanks for your comment–you make some interesting points! You mention only one study cited here, some of the papers cited in this study are metastudies that summarize results of 100s of different studies with different methodologies (some of which feed animals higher levels of GM foods and analyze up to several years–rodent lifespans are only ~2 years), which all suggest that GM foods are safe for consumption. These studies are done by independent academic groups without funding or conflict of interest from biotech groups, making the conclusions different from that of the tobacco industry with regards to cigarettes. (As a side note, from a scientific perspective, there’s also a lot less reason to be suspicious of GM foods since the added DNA and proteins are thought to be broken down similarly to any DNA or protein that you would eat, whereas cigarette smoke introduces foreign chemicals to the body). On a more technical note, in the study you mention, the 5% figure refers to the percentage of the rats’ total diet that was made up of potatoes (GM or not GM) NOT the percentage of potatoes in their diet that is GM. Since that particular study is specifically testing potatoes, not corn or other GM products, this actually seems pretty reasonable to me. This would be like a human with a 2000 calorie diet eating about 1 GM potato per day (which I would guess is actually more GM potato than the average human eats, given both the prevalence of potato in our diets and the prevalence of GM potatoes on the market). You’re correct that the average person could have more than 5% of their diet made up of GM foods, but that was not the question of this particular study. Another study cited here (7) actually feeds rats 12-7,100 times the amount of GM vegetable that would be expected to be in human diets, and they still found no health effects by several measures. Well, I prefer to grow my own non-GMO, non- bioengineered produce myself. Purchase Wild-Caught Salmon and Free Range Grass Fed Beef with no added anti-Biotics or hormones. Drink reverse osmosis, alkaline water and cook or reheat food from a stove top, rather than a microwave. Seems to do a body good. Now if I could just “get into” the xercising – although not overweight or anythin and o evidence of disease other than high blood pressure (treated). . The short answer is: the toxic-potato study had design flaws that didn’t allow them to draw any conclusions from their work. One aspect was that their control potato was not equivalent in nutritional value to their GMO potato, meaning a difference in health could just as likely be due to malnutrition. It amazes me how you consider “your science” the only “right science” and how linear is your way of thinking. Nothing in biology is as simple as you pretend to be and there are many other factors that influence the number and quality of toxicity studies on GMOs. Have you considered ‘funding’ and ‘conflict of interest’ at all in your analysis? I would love to hear from you what exactly is “bad science” and what is “good science”. This is a million dollar question and you would solve all the issues for the scientific community! Let me also remind you that 85% of all GMOs are herbicide tolerant and that they were designed to accumulate herbicides and thus going into the food and feed chains.In addition, most of all new GM plants have multiple trait and there is almost no studies that test multiple Bt toxins and multiple herbicides together. This is recognized by EFSA and the scientific community as a knowledge gap. There is a need to study real case scenarios, the food we eat 🙂 Hi Sarah! Thanks for reading! First of all, a lot of GMOs are herbicide tolerant, as you said, but they are not designed to “accumulate herbicide”, but rather resist herbicide. Yes–this can lead to the use of more pesticides on these crops, but the health effects of that on the consumer are unclear. Also, Bt crops actually DECREASE the use of chemical insecticide AND have less Bt (the most common organic insecticide) than organic crops! (See http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/, and http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ for more info!). Also, plenty (if not all) of the studies cited here are funded by government agencies in multiple countries, as is most basic scientific research, so there should be no conflict of interest. You’re right that most GMOs have stacked traits to be GR and express Bt, and it might be worth testing those two traits together if it hasn’t been done already (I’ll let Megan answer that). However, what is abundantly clear is that the actual process of genetic modification does not make a crop bad for our health–it’s all about what you modify! It furthermore seems unlikely given the current data that any of the GM crops we eat now are dangerous to our health. Finally, addressing your first paragraph, many of us at SITN are biologists, and we are aware the biology is complicated! We also believe in trusting data. I am interested in seeing all sides of this issue–if you know of other studies that show that GMOs are dangerous to our health, please let me know! I am always willing to change my mind with new evidence. Untrustworthy science is that without controls that did not go through a peer review process and cannot be replicated (like the IRT study), trustworthy or “good” science is the opposite. Actually this is patently untrue. Scientific method, the basis of all science, is about testing ideas, hypotheses and theories against new data, ideas and inputs. Sometimes science will be validated, sometimes it will be improved by new thinking, new methodology, new instrumentation for testing, or even whole new theorems. The idea that science is always correct is ridiculous, as all scientific knowledge so far has been for the most part incremental, while sometimes a transformative idea (Einstein’s theory) for instance will upset the apple cart. Sooooo. The thing is, a lot of the real studies we have on health issues change and develop over more than 20 years and it often takes a few decades to come to a conclusion that may or may not change in the next few. Everyone can argue back and forth on the issue of GMO’s but the truth is we really won’t know for a long time for sure what the affects of GMO’s are. I also want to say that many health issues are actually due to the bad health choices of people in all aspects of their lives. There are studies for example that show that someone who overindulges in food, even for a few years may have a good life, but their descendants then have a higher chance of heart problems. Then when those health problems arise, it isn’t that hard for individuals to develop other health issues. We can see evidence of this in any study of epigenetics. Multiple tests have been done on both humans and animals in regards to those who don’t, and do eat GMOs.We do know their effects, and we know that they do nothing.I don’t see how a organism modified to have different DNA, or even just cutting out and putting in new DNA would have an adverse effect like increasing toxicity or causing impotence.It’s childish thinking.Though, I do agree that science changes constantly, the whole GMO toxicity thing has been disproved for a long time. The article you listed doesn’t explain the country’s reasoning. GMOs being banned in europe doesn’t really mean anything unless the countries that have banned GMOs can provide evidence for why they did so. If they don’t, this is just an appeal to authority, and logically unsound. (For more information, research the appeal to authority logical fallacy.) I think it is premature to make blanket statements about the safety of GMOs based on the research to date. Some potential holes in the analysis of prior research. 1. Mice studies are not the equivalent of a double-bind long term human study. Of course you are right that this can not be done but the assertion that mice studies are enough to “prove” safety is not enough in my opinion 2. Your review of literature show at best that the technique of gene splicing in and of itself is not harmful but this not mean that dangerous & harmful products can be created with gene splicing. Given the infinite permutations of genes that can be combined in the lab it will be only a matter of time that a particular combination will have emergent properties that will be devastating consequences that were not foreseen. With anything, as time goes on business and scientists become lax over time. Mishaps in the Nuclear power industry are a prime example of this. 3. Lack of studies on population outliers. Sure many products may be safe for the general population but can have very severe consequences for certain segments of the population. Have there been studies looking at particular GMO products against all types of test subjects? Some variables would be pregnant, immune comprised, infant, etc. The reason I bring these issues up is that I have two sons. One with a fructose intolerance issue and another with severe allergic GI issues. Per a multitude of studies, the human population is seeing a dramatic rise in allergenic & gastrointestinal ailments in the last 25 years that parallels the introduction of GMO foods. This correlation alone of course does not prove causality but where there is smoke, science must take the time to identify the source of the fire. That sounds like: 1. My goalpost is unattainable, and you haven’t reached it yet. You mentioned something which cannot be done should be done in order to garner proof. You also are the first person to mention “prove” on this page. 2. Just because bad things can result from something, does not mean that thing is inherently harmful to you. Nearly everything you do with a positive outcome, has a negative consequence. 3. Please see the argument written above in the original piece. Sometimes there is no fire. Sometimes there is just more understanding. Sometimes, we get better at catching irregularities as time passes. Correlation most certainly does not prove causation, but more-so, correlation doesn’t prove causation especially when it directly contradicts what we already know to be most likely. The plant is resistant to pesticides because it eats the pesticides. Then you come along and ingest it. Your stomach dissolves it and now your intestine gets ready to absorb the nutrients. WHAM !! It’s ambushed by pesticides/poison/toxic matter, therefore destroying your digestive system slowly. Then of course, it expands to other parts of your body, as it’s carried through your blood. Also many countries in Europe BANNED GMO crops and lately we’ve been coming in second place to Europe in terms of advancing as a society, technology, adapting to new laws, recycling and I feel America, lately, has not been fair in informing us with the truth and protecting us from the bad if there’s money involved. We’re all eating poison and we’ll find out when it’s too late There are some additional things that bother me about GMO’s. DNA and the interplay of the various genes is phenomenally complex. Without even making any alterations in a genome there are many things we do not fully understand about how it all works- what synergies exist, what sequences are key for subsequent sequences to operate successfully, etc. Until I feel confident that we understand more about the complexities of the existing genomes WHEN they are operating within living ecosystems, I do not feel comfortable throwing a wrench into the works. It has taken millions of years for evolution to fine tune these systems- both ours and the plants we are dependent on for food- and there are millions of variables affecting both our internal and external environments. GMO’s feel way too much like playing God. I would rather choose the humbler path of following nature’s lead than the arrogant path, (the one that got us kicked out of the garden of Eden and which is leading us to ruin our second Eden), of tinkering with potentially life threatening technologies . My second major issue with GMO’s is that most are “owned” by one major corporation, Monsanto, and the rest are owned by only a few others. Monsanto would have us believe they are interested in GMO’s because they are saving the world, when really Monsanto is just a chemical company (from birth) maximizing profit for shareholders by creating a legal stranglehold on food production. This corporation which is now considered to be a “person” uses GMO’s to make farmers dependent on them to buy their proprietary seed, and then buy their proprietary chemicals, and in addition they sue farmers if they save seed or are inadvertently the victims of wind blown pollen dispersal of GMO’s into other areas on their or neighboring farms. If I thought for one minute that GMO’s were actually being utilized to make the world a better place I would seriously look at them as a possible tool, but until they are no longer “owned” by Monsanto and a few other for profit chemical companies I cannot trust the purposes for which they have been designed or utilized. Hello Jean, Thank you for adding to this discussion. I want to be transparent with you about why I only approved some of your comments. As this discussion has been going on for several years, I have slowly adopted some guidelines about what comments are actually helpful in the debate. I am more than happy to approve comments that support a different point of view on GMOs (such as the video you posted above!). However, we are a non-profit graduate student organization. We do not get any money or guidance from Monsanto or any other company. I have explained this in the comments section of our GMO articles many times, and yet people still question our motives. In an effort to keep the discussion on the science, I have decided not to approve any accusatory comments. Too bad this article is complete bullshit. Saying GMOs are completely safe is ridiculous. Who paid for your research Monsanto? Did you get any kickbacks? There is so much evidence saying GMOs are toxic. Look what it is doing to the bee population. Just because someone from Harvard has done a study we should take that as fact? This article isn’t about one study, it’s about evidence from a bunch of studies (none of which were done at Harvard as far as I can remember). Also, it’s not about environmental effects, to read about the environmental effects you can look here: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/signal-to-noise-special-edition-gmos-and-our-food/ . We are a graduate student organization, and we’re not paid by Monsanto, and as far as I know, none of the studies we cited here were either. We are merely interested in providing science articles that are based in primary sources (which is what we are doing here). Also, may I ask if you have gathered any information regarding the disadvantages of GM plants? If you could link some non-commercial studies that aren’t older than 5 years that would be a great help to me. It’s so funny to see you using expressions such as “as far as I can remember” and “as far as I can tell” as valid arguments. Do you have REAL proof that pro-GMO studies are not being funded by Monsanto and the bunch? Have you actually invested your time in studying how these organisations operate, and the ways they are using to “hide” their involvement? You should be asking all these questions if you were a true scientist. Besides, “peer reviews” in many journals don’t prove anything either – I have been a victim of this in academia myself, and few of my fellow friends in academic world regularly experience unfair and biased reviews, as well as false positive reviews where reviewers just refuse to notice flaws in the study that are not very obvious. The scientific community cannot be fully trusted, and this is the sad fact. Your own publication here just enforces this fact imho. Personally, I trust the scientific community and trust that if someone is working with Monsanto or other large agro corporation, they will disclose it as is journal policy in all peer reviewed publications. In fact, there are papers that do include “conflict of interest” statements, but we have not cited these here. I’m not sure it is possible to prove to you, as someone who does not trust the scientific community, that pro-GMO studies are not being funded by Monsanto, but I will say this: as a biologist, it logically doesn’t make much sense to me that just the changing of the DNA of a crop to make it make a protein that has no effect on humans, would make it bad for humans. And the majority of studies support that GM crops are not harmful to our health. Maybe Monsanto is secretly funding the majority of these studies in a huge, HUGE cover-up including probably hundreds of labs and tens to hundreds of journals, and all of the anti-GMO activists have just not been able to find any proof of it, but I doubt it. Conspiracy theory thinking hooks the brain because it feels like critical thinking. Between personal anecdotes and a complete disregard for the data/evidence that has been produced for whatever reason, many consider themselves to be more knowledgeable than the people around the world who dedicate their lives to studying certain topics. The Dunning Kruger effect shows in these comments. I applaud whoever has been contributing to the SITNFlash account over the last five years for having the patience to respond to so many conspiratorial comments. It is undoubtedly incredibly frustrating. All these studies you cite are funded directly or indirectly By MOnanto and other GMOs or the FDA which is inn bed with Monsanto and has been since Bush Sr. Any science connected to capitalist motivations is suspect. We know pollution is really really bad for us–deadly–and yet it is not banned–it is promoted and facilitated by the same governemtn and institutions applaudinng GMOs. Your claim is that th science is “good” (by these capitlaist outfits) and so it should be allowed without question–“it is safe.” So no, labelling, no more regulaitons, no bans, no serious need for further research. Yet, science shows us that industrial pollution is bad, m-kay, and there is no serious law or movement to ban or regulate pollution–government policy is basically to facilitate industry, like GMOs and Big Pharma–even though it is destructive and environmentalists are labelled terrorists and assaulted by police thugs and para military troops endorsed by the government. In one case your science claims it is not right to ban GMOS or regulate them, and in another case, OUR science shows pollution is bad and it cant be regulated–the common denominator is capitalism–PROFIT! not human health, not the public welfare. Not human rights. not earth rights. You see–you are bias and uncritical. You cite flawed science and promote unethical policy against our civil an human rights. You might not be bad people, but you serve bad people and bad policy. What would science look like UN-corrupted by capitalist interests? Think about it. How deep do the capitalist tentacles go? You are a product of capitalist indoctrination and conditioning. Thank you for reading our article. In the spirit of full transparency, I am replying to tell you that I have not approved some of your comments because they are not contributing productively to the conversation due to repeated personal attacks at other commenters, the author of the article, or this site in general. If you would like to re-write your comments without these personal attacks, I would be happy to approve them. I understand that your point of view is that all studies are indirectly funded by Monsanto and are therefore unable to be trusted. We welcome discussion about that point of view, but please don’t attack anyone (the comment above is borderline). I would be very interested to ready why you think this is flawed science that is cited here or any reliable sources about funding of the studies cited. Hey, I wish that were true Randall. I am actually doing an academic research paper on the positives and negatives of GMOs and let me assure you that there is not many studies proving GMOs are toxic, or harmful for that matter. If there were then I wouldn’t have so much trouble trying to find negatives on this topic. Actually I believe that most of the negatives are just fears that people have concerning the potential risks of GMOs, however, those are just potential risks and have not been proved or agreed upon by a scientific body. I’m actually going to have a look on some more articles from this page and see if I can find some disadvantages of GMOs. capitalists fund research. Only big capitalist institutions have the funds to research. So I am not surprised it is hard to find independent studies. But many exist–especially outside America–which are conveniently dismissed by Americans. And were immediately set upon by Monsanto and the capitalist infrastructure to smear them as not good science or conspiracy theorists–hmmm. The point is NOT enough science and research is done or allowed and NO science was done to permit GMOs in the first place back in 96 and earlier. It was passed without question –why? BIG PROFIT. more science is needed and until then GMOs must be in contained labs only. Knowing what we know about all the other harms they produce in society and the ecosystem and civil rights, politics–they must be banned until more research–maybe 20-50 years of extensive independent research is done–and we can see how GMOs impact health over time, but since it would be unethical to use human studies–as they are doing with us in the market place–our studies must be limited and maybe only then after 100 years can we know for sure–bottom line is its not practical and not safe and not doable and not ethical and very very bad for the environment and human rights. there is just no need for it. period. none. It is about profit and control of food–patented terminator seeds. period. BAN IT! The irony of you spreading this nonsensical set of opinions on the Internet is delicious. I suggest you get away from your devilish computer, stomp on your soul-sucking smartphone , throw your TV out a window , and trash your radio and any other electronic device you use. Each of those devices has easily provable disadvantages to your health and psychic well-being. BAN THEM ALL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE MUST BE WORSHIPPED!!! Oooo. I feel so righteous now. according to what science? You just can not know that–it is too early. You are not credible. You are not all-knowing. I have seen research that suggest it would be less healthy. And i can tell you, it has less taste–oh sure, corporate labs will use flavor enhancers–also cancer causing to get that nice commercial taste of the real thing, and when consumers are so familiar with it over time they don’t recognize organic food and how things should taste, and we have been acclimated to commercial processed food for a century which it is known is less nutrient, and harmful, and yet corporations deny it and the media denies it and people deny it and somehow think organic food is unhealthy–wow!–and that is because the for-profit media is telling them that and growing a garden is too much work for GMO inundated couch potatoes. I can tell you organic food grown in rich healthy soil is far superior in taste and substance. It is extremely arrogant to believe that a few capitalist studies and no-so-much-studies can improve billions of years of nature science and tens of thousand of years of natural breeding–human selection by natural means. Arrogance. We have become the destroyer of worlds. get a grip would you. You have no right to contaminate our world without our approval–and funny thing the world does not approve and yet we are ignored. hmm. Profit maybe? I am in utter awe of these comments you are making. Completely slandering logical, science-based conclusions with consistently debunked science; fear-mongering tactics with absolutely nothing credible to back it up. It’s these type of people that prevent beneficial technologies from helping society If anything, it is people like YOU that are fear-mongering. You constantly say that the GMOs cause cancer and are bad for your health, when in reality that is simply untrue. You are spreading ill-informed fear, and this article does not try to instill any fear in anyone. Please do more research and not only on the things that fuel your narrative. Its a Radical Wacky Coolkid thing to do. Be like a Radical Wacky Coolkid. I wonder why USA does not ban GMO. It must be good, right? I wonder why USA sponsors warfare around the world for decades. It must be fair, right? (Using your own method here to show you how stupid such statements are) Neither yours nor previous commenters argument is valid. You just reversed their argument and present it as a valid contra-argument which uses the same logic, just biased in an opposite way. Btw, Islam be it right or wrong is still their choice, same as GMO. If people in US choose GMO and ready to face the consequences – that’s fine, but why impose their view upon the rest of the world? Same goes about false US democracy which they’re trying to sell around the world… Science, however, should be free of politics and business – but unfortunately there are tons of proof that it is currently not, hence cannot be fully trusted – simple as that. I’ve never enjoyed reading a comments section nearly as much as I have this one; for many reasons and peoples! I try to be objective when hearing differing sides of an argument and therefore would like to see any credible evidence as to whether or not GMOs are actually harmful to our health; if it’s legit, I’ll listen. I’m not yet convinced of the evils of Monsanto, I suspect there is a lot of personal opinions and anecdotes surrounding their reputation and activities. Does anyone know a good, objective source for vetting them a little more thoroughly? Lastly, I recently read that the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) is not an “institute” so much as a single guy writing blog posts. Does anyone know if this is true? Would you feed your kids GMOs? Your research is bulshit compared to all the real parents who are witnessing the harmful effects of GMOs on a daily basis. Come do some real studies in the ghetto then maybe you’ll open your eyes to what really is going on. I’m loving to read your series on GMOs. I’ve done extensive research on this matter on the last few weeks and this site has to be one of the most thourough sources there is. That being said, I’m still on the fence about the safety of the use of GMOs to human consumption. The fact is, there is still many things we don’t fully understand about the interplay of gene expression and molecular pathways. Glad you’re enjoying our articles! First, I’d like to highlight that the science is pretty clear about the idea that genetically engineering food is not inherently bad. For example, newer GMO technologies that are focusing on eliminating expression of certain genes rather than adding foreign genes have very little potential to create food that will be harmful our health. At the other extreme, if you genetically engineered corn to express a gene that make the protein that people are allergic to in peanuts, and then you gave someone with a peanut allergy that corn, they would likely also be allergic to the GE-peanut-corn. So I think it’s important to keep in mind that not all GMOs are equal. The Seralini study is somewhere in between these two extremes–they are testing GMOs that have a foreign protein with no known allergenic or negative properties. The summary of my opinion is that there is not enough data to support the idea that there are health effects of GMO crops that are currently on the market, but I don’t think it’s theoretically impossible for a GM food to have negative health consequences, and I fully support continued independent studies. I think the first warning sign for this article is that it hasn’t really been replicated by the scientific community, and, in fact, most meta-analysis of many many GMO studies have found opposite results. On a more technical level, there are two red flags that come up for me about this study (and I’m not an expert in his field, but I am a biologist): (1) there’s no dose-response relationship. Usually to show that a substance is harmful, you would show that if you give an animal more of that substance, the effect is greater. So, you’d expect here that if you give a rat a 33% GMO instead of an 11% GMO diet, you’d get more tumors, liver damage etc. But they don’t really see this, which makes scientists worried that they are just measuring noise (or random fluctuations). and (2) the GMO results (GMOs even in the GMO only and not GMO+R condition were at one point treated with roundup) look very similar to the R results, making it difficult to distinguish an effect of genetic engineering from an effect of roundup. I guess you might be correct on that GMO’s are not linked to Health Issues. I am 14 and got intimidated by a few GMO documentaries a few years ago. I thought that GMO’s were linked to all these health problems, but it seems like, according to you, they were fed 7000x GMO than Human in terms of consumption rates. It seems like if their results can’t be replicated, and that some haphazardly agree and disagree that GMO’s are safe or bad. Here is my question: 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming and that it’s caused by Humans. Why then, is it not the case that 97% of scientists believe that GMO’s are safe ? Also, GMO’s can compete with Native Crops and outcompete them. That would be bad for the environment. Also, what happens if the GMO plants crossbreed with Native Ones. And since all the Native ones would eventually create their own pesticide, environmental pressures would mean that they would overpopulate and native bugs would die. This would mess up the food chain and lead to a loss of biodiversity. Right ? Also, GMO’s lead to superbugs. GMO’s are like overusing antibiotics, accept they are that on steroids. Evolution will lead to resistance and that means more pesticides and more environmental harm. Doesn’t it seem like GMO’s are too complicated. Their environmental impacts are too risky. Especially, if they crossbreed with Native Plants. And what is the advantage of GMO’s ? Why do through all this hassle ? Just eat Organic. If it takes up too much land, use hydroponics. If it raises prices, then work harder and get a pay raise. If Organic means people in 3rd world countries are starving because food is expensive, then tell them to have a 1 child policy and then until they afford it, they can have a 2 child policy. And you’re right, GMOs can cause super-weeds that are resistant to glyphosphate, but it’s actually from people overusing pesticides (which GMOs make possible)–it’s not an inherent property of all GMOs (some GMOs don’t even have pesticide resistance b/c they’re modified to do something else). And to answer your question–data from the AAAS suggests that scientific consensus on GMOs and scientific consensus on human-caused climate change are actually pretty similar (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html)–around 90% of scientists think GMOs are safe and that humans contribute to climate change. I personally think we should continue to be careful and test new GMOs to make sure they don’t cause problems with superweeds and biodiveristy, but so far, those concerns are mostly hypothetical. Hi, I am going to include this research in my argument paper. Thank you for providing a good clarification details regarding the toxicity, genes and mutagenesis. I will cite your research properly and hopefully will have a good feedback to my professor. 🙂 Hi again, another thing is that your references and sources are not up to date. It will actually affect your credibility. Although I took some information that were published after the year of 2012 to make my paper more concise. I still acknowledge and applaud you for your work it is very well written! Liked the article and the comments. One thing I’d point out as an actual farmer is – the word “super weed” is disengenuous. Some people may associate the word “super” with “super powers”. Glyphosate resistant weeds look just like their non glyphosate counterparts. The resistant plants have just developed ways to stop glyphosate from harming them – through natural selection. No herbicide is 100% effective on all targeted weeds – ie – if glyphosate kills all the susceptible weeds – the only ones that survive a treatment might might be resistant. Glyphosate is quite effective at controlling weeds and it took some time for weeds to develop resistance – but glyphosate isn’t the first herbicide to experience resistance – and not all weed species have developed resistance to glyphosate. Many other herbicides have had target weeds develop resistance as well. Glyphosate has been a very effective tool in our area for reducing soil erosion and preserving moisture in our semi arid climate. I am not a scientist, just a mom who wants healthy kids. I talk to other moms, many spending huge amounts of their limited income trying to avoid foods that may be unhealthy for their kids, including GMOs. I wasn’t sure if I should he following suit so I did a Google search today and of the top results your a seemed the most reputable. I did study agriculture, but I am outdated. But, I do remember finding that organic crops often required elevated total toxicity in order to achieve pest control when compared with non-organic crops since the chemicals at the disposal of an organic farmer are, by nature, limited. So, they sometimes must choose something more toxic than traditional pesticides or use much more of their pesticides to achieve control. I do not remember any sources at this point so everyone can (and probably should) have a heyday with that. The point is that I am familiar with the idea that just because something came directly from nature doesn’t mean its healthy (aflotoxin, cyanide (a pesticide that plants made all by themselves), etc). My question is about Bt crops. You said there is evidence that Bt crops actually contain less total pesticide than those sprayed with Bt. However, those sprayed can be washed. I assume you cannot wash the pesticide from Bt crops. But Bt is complex. There may be more to it than I understand. It’s why I ask. Have any studies been done that take washing or rinsing into account, or is that irrelevant for some reason that I do not currently know about? Thank you for your diligent research in an internet full of every kind of article and study. Hi! Thanks for reading! I like that you’re challenging the “natural” = “healthy” idea. I don’t know of any direct comparisons of washed crops sprayed with Bt and Bt GMOs. Actually, though, not all organic Bt treatment can be washed off, since it is sometimes injected (e.g. into squash), which is perhaps why most research has instead focused on toxicity to humans without washing. Bt spray has been considered a very safe pesticide since it was introduced in 1938 (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/). I’m guessing that there hasn’t been a ton of research about the benefits of washing the Bt-sprayed crops because it’s generally agreed upon that Bt isn’t dangerous to humans (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/, )–even at the higher doses that people are exposed to if they eat unwashed Bt-sprayed crops. Also, Bt toxin in GM crops is at very low doses in the parts of the plant that we usually eat (e.g. kernel of corn, potato tuber) and is relatively higher in the leaves/stems, which I guess is what the bugs usually eat (https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pip/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf). I think all of you should look in to foreign studies on this I went through american after america study on this and its left me just unsure, but second I typed in Russian study holy shit I need to look more in to this and other countries that have and have not Banned GMOs. just like Professor Wilson said up the comments the proper research that needs to be done is not there but as I also said I need to look further in to the subject myself I’m doing a research paper on this and I’m eager to learn more. thanks for this article though. I’d be interested to read anything you find in your search! I have found a difficult time finding studies from any country that convincingly show health effects of eating GMO crops. In this article we cite studies from Korea and China, among other countries. If you’re willing, please share your findings so we can also read these other studies. Chinese studies will most likely be in favour of GMO simply because its negative effects on reproduction can partially solve their over-reproduction problem. Besides, everything in China is seriously controlled by the state and can easily be altered in favour of the state. It’s very sad to see how science has become a tool for business and politicians lately, and them taking control of it which defeats the sole purpose of the science in the first place – delivering the unbiased truth to people. Your information and attitude is among the most responsible I have seen. A sign of an objective person. I am a research scientist in Agriculture and pesticides- worked on it over 40 years. Pesticides have been proven to be safe and GMO’s have been, as well. Do we know all? Certainly not, but there is a huge amount of data showing safety for both. The negatives are mostly circumstantial or feelings. Your comment about human-caused global warming is not true, however. Only about 50% or less of climate scientists think man is influencing climate. IPCC is a group of proponents of man-caused global warming but over 31,000 American Scientists have signed a petition for our government to get out of the Japanese global warming agreement because there is not good data to show that carbon dioxide increases warming. There may be a correlation but not causation. Thanks Thanks for reading! The data I am citing about scientists’ views on climate change is from the Pew Research Center: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/ and shows that 88% of scientists think GMOs are safe to eat and 87% think climate change is “mostly due to human activity”. I don’t know where your 50% figure comes from (would be interested to see), but the 31,000 people who signed the OISM Petition Project are probably mostly not climate scientists or even practicing scientists, they are just people with at least Bachelor’s degree in any science/medicine field (according to their website–looks like <30% of the people who signed have PhDs). I am doing a pro-con argument on GMO’s and this essay has so many facts and is so well written. I really enjoyed reading it and even the comments on it were interesting to read. It feels like when it comes to GMO’s so many “studies” and “scientific research groups” are just biased groups trying to get people to see only the “bad side to GMO’s” and not any other way. This essay really helped to clear the waters up. Thanks Megan! Rice, wheat and corn does more than 50% of contribution to the world’s nutritional needs. Wheat alone is consumed as a staple food by 35% of the world’s population. These mega-crops consume significantly more water resources while compared to traditional crops like Sorghum and Millets. Millets are drought resistant and even referred to as “poor man’s crops”. We hear news about drought and food insecurity in African and South Asian countries which, in fact, receive adequate sunlight throughout the year. Is it because these countries move towards the 3 mega crops eventually phasing out the drought resistant traditional crops like millets, sorghum, etc? While we have this interesting debate about GMO’s pros and cons, India is currently facing severe drought due to failure in rainfall. The economy of India is heavily dependent on food exports which majorly includes rice, wheat and corn. And not just export, the consumption of millets and other traditional crops by the people of South Asian and African countries has gone down significantly and the mega crops consumption has increased on the other hand. What’s the solution to these problems? There is heavy pressure on such countries to go GMO in order to increase their rice or wheat production despite their water scarcity. Is GMO the optimal solution or do we need to pay more attention to food and biodiversity? Biodiversity is certainly not in the best interests of companies like Monsanto as it isn’t very easy to commoditize and monetize the drought resistant traditional crops? Even if they find a way out to monetize such crops, it isn’t going to happen overnight yielding immediate profits. Shouldn’t we focus more on preserving food and biodiversity as well? What if, change in mindset and investing on native crops has got a better and sustainable solution? I am sorry to have brought out the political aspect of this in this thread which is meant only for scientific discussion. For more information on food and biodiversity, please refer to the below link. https://www.idrc.ca/en/article/facts-figures-food-and-biodiversity I think there’s an argument to be made for using genetic engineering technology to make drought-resistant crops. However, it will always be important to consider and test the environmental impact of any newly engineered crops. Here’s a quote: “In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated [with] study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favourable light.” – Johan Diels, CBQF/Escola Superior de Biotecnologia da Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal, and colleagues Great article! I’m tired of people justifying their “I don’t eat GMO’s” in the possible effects on health! So much people need to read this! What I’m concerned on GMO’s is their impact on the environment, not just directly as crop, but the terrible use of pesticides affecting soil and water (subterranean and water contaminated by run off) since most of them are made to resist glysophate. Thank you for doing this piece of research on gmo’s. My father is an avid farmer at home and a chemical engineer. I’ve always asked him these questions and have so many friends who fear gm food. I recently watched an episode of Bill Nye Save the world and he even spoke with experts on how they are not harmful to humans. Finally i have documents I can show that research was done. Thank you very much. My only concern is the effect they could have on the ecosystem and surrounding plants. But not harm on humans. In fact i hope they are working on something to save Mexico and South American bananas right now . I think people are taught to worry to much about almost everything in life! Does all of this GMO really cause cancer or is it the fact that humans genetically outliving how long the human body is really meant to live? People used to live to 20,30,40.50 at the oldest not 70-100 or more and so there was not as much cancer. Think about if people stopped stressing about everything and enjoyed life how much happier we would all be. Grow your own food, stop making babies and quit trying to find an answer to prove your truth…….I believe that we are taught to waste what precious time we have arguing and trying to prove “OUR” truth……there is no truth. So, put down your proven sticks, eat what you feel comfortable with, go sit out in nature and take a deep breath. Don’t waste your life with these topics. Or else we are going to spend another day writing about the Lactose intolerance scare! If GMO’S are SOO safe, why do those farmers have to wear HAZMAT suits? Do these “scientist(s) know what the LONG TERM effects of GMO’S? I think not. As we all know that Harvard is a biased/ “snowflake” college Because the pesticides and weed killers (Which they also put on organic crops) are dangerous to humans? and they did study long-term effects, If you read any of the words instead of just looking at the pretty pictures, shut up and let the smart people save you and your children’s life. No need to worry, GMOs won’t bite. First of all I would like to thank you for the excellent article and your articulate and logical responses to the people that comment on this site. Next I would like to say how Monsanto is not an evil corporation that most people make it out to be. Many of their products, especially vegetable crops, are changed through hybridization which means that they should not be considered a GMO. However if those count as a GMO then all beef, pork, and poultry products are GMO’s because they were bred to be larger, have more meat, grow faster, etc… I have been luck enough to be able to work with Monsanto inside of their facilities and also learn from some of the greatest minds in that company. I would also like to say that from the perspective of a farmer and the perspective of a student that GMO’s can be helpful and possibly a long term solution to feeding our ever growing population. However this can only be achieved if the new plants are created carefully and made safe through many studies, research, and more information given to the public so that everyone is better informed so that they can make a better decision to them whether it be for or against GMO’s. I am a current grade 12 student and I have been exploring the chemistry behind GMO’s. Specifically, I have been learning about the process in which they are created and how they may impact our world positively and negatively. I find this fascinating because GMO’s seem to be a relatively new technology that can greatly advance our world and food production output. I am interested in your research on the public health concerns related towards GMO’s. Performing research on the topic, I have come across many organizations claiming that GMO’s negatively impact the human body, however they mention that the technology is too new to show long term health effects. Would you be able to help me understand this topic a little better? Specifically, I was wondering if there has been any evidence or research on the longterm health effects of GMO’s and what it may be. In the experiments you recalled in your article there was no evidence that human health was at risk with GMO’s, were those experiments short term? Any other advice or suggestions you may have would be much appreciated. Whenever anyone works outside of the ‘natural evolutionary process’ to produce anything that is ‘living’ whether it be plant, animal, bacterial , viral or anything else they run tremendous risks for ‘backlash’. That ‘backlash’ can only be avoided by ‘natural processes’ and GMO’s are NOT natural. Currently, those who are producing such ‘innovations’ are not held responsible for any negative results. When this disadvantage for the consumer is relieved, by laws that are enforced, then the process will take on a much different approach than what is being used presently. Ultimately, the fact that those who venture into the ‘creation of life’ (these are human attempts at competition with their deities) will ultimately be held responsible for their actions and their products human nature and the ‘law of self preservation’ will rule the actions of those people and safety will be the by product. Ok, but even the organic fruits that you eat today, for example, are not exactly like the ones our ancestors used to have. Ever since people started with agriculture, we’d choose the seeds that served us better, with bigger fruits or faster growth. That’s not natural. It’s humanity interfering with nature. It has always been like that. Doing that with the help of technology is by no means more dangerous. Can you please clarify for me where the funding for this paper came from? Can you clafify what you plan to do when you recieve your doctrine degree? Lastly, who do you work for or intended to work for? I found this article extremely informative but do not agree with it. I am asking about funding because I am sure you are aware of funding that comes from the same position as the author and would recommend if anybody wanted to see a counter argument to this article to watch the moive GMO Roulette. I believe it is beyond safe for me to say that there is an argument for both sides and somewhere in there the truith is. My objective is to find that truith from an unbiased source, which seems to be very challenging these days. Thank you for your time. Hi Mark, Thanks for your comment! We’re a grad student organization and all our articles are written by volunteer grad students. As an organization, we receive some funding from Harvard, but none of that goes to paying writers or editors of the blog (it’s all for keeping our domain name, renting event space etc). I agree with this article and everything that it is supporting. Many people say they have ‘solid’ evidence towards the fact that GMO’s are harmful to your body, but what this article clearly brings to light is the fact that there really are no known adverse reactions towards GMO products. The author is trying to put dust in the eyes of the public. Every second person is getting cancer after eating GMO food. The true results are there to see. Despite humans are 1000 times more careful what they eat and what they don’t eat and how much exercise or whatever necessary to maintain their health still all dangerous disease has become epidemic. This happened after the introduction of GMO food. This is a laughable article and may be paid advertisement to buy more GMO and end up part of population control. I am sure I will be able to find an article totally scientific but opposite to what the author wrote here to deceive the public. If GMO is safe why people are having an epidemic of Diabetes, thyroid problem, obesity, blood pressure, cardiovascular problems, and great cancer epidemic which started as every 49th person was diagnosed with cancer but now every other person has cancer. I understand just GMO is not targetted attack on the body but almost everything that we used for life has been GM.ed in many ways. For example water has chlorine and fluoride with hundreds of side effects, then air is full of planted and hundreds of chemical, then radiation from electronics we use, then all food we eat, then our brains are getting polluted with horrible news of crimes in the world, hardly you see good news of people who are heroes in daily life, they are not reported to promote goodness and human brotherhood. Them the sun is causing cancer due to the hole over the north pole. Most of the cancer caused by what you state in your comment is your comment itself, it really is making me want to die with how you are just stating random things you found on the internet and I just have to say you have really made my day man, I appreciate being stupid for the sake of making my day better! I only hope that they label all GMO foods that way I still have the choice to eat or not to eat. Being a vegan I read all lables. It is getting harder and harder to find food that don’t have GMO in it. This one company that makes veggie meat also has it in it but then they also have caffeine in their meatballs. So it really can’t be called health food, can it? Well we have been modifying food crops for a very long period of time by selecting the characteristics that we think are desirable. Just compare the original wild corn to the corn used by the Aztecs in Mexico when the Spaniards arrived. By the use of genetic modification we have speeded up the process. Introducing genes from unrelated species is new but there is s evidence that in nature there occurs a crossover of genes between unrelated species. One also has to take note that in nature many plants have toxins that are harmful to human health. So when we genetically modify a plant there is a risk we might make the plant more toxic but that same risk exists in nature. Contrary to what some people would like to believe nature is not this benign force that is looking out for our interests. I am an old guy (77 years old) so I am way behind when it comes to modern genetics but I do have a Master’s degree in biology. So I can look at this issue in an objective way because the basic philosophy of science doesn’t change. You don’t jump to conclusions without good evidence. That is not good science. Probably what would bother me the most is pesticide resistance which translates into a heavier use of pesticides To clarify I want to say that my above comment was only meant to show that GMO foods are safe to eat, but we should not accept this as the end of the debate. Megan has done a fine job of synthesizing multiple studies that show how safe the GMO foods are for consumers, however we should not believe this is a closed book on GMO safety. More testing should be done, especially with long term studies that track changes over two or three year periods. Interesting how many people are defending GMOs on this board even though they have no personal investment in the topic…Or do they..Scott here ^ follows up his original comment to clarify that he does in fact believe GMOs are safe to eat and makes a declarative statement that “GMO foods are safe to eat” and immediately following says that not enough research has been completed to actually make this determination, otherwise why would you say more research is necessary? The only reason this topic is searched and therefore this article discovered is someone is either concerned about the safety of GMOs, wants to learn more about GMOs, or the person has a vested interest in the success of GMOs. So to be on this board defending GMOs is questionable to say the least, particularly because there is not enough evidence to even make a claim about the safety of GMOs. So making such a definitive claim is negligent and really suspicious. I have spoke with professors that casually speak of the risk a researcher poses to his or her career if they publish studies shining any negative light on GMOs. It’s fact that Monsanto employs mobster like techniques to keep the public uninformed and the money flowing. Tell me that it hasn’t been proven that Monsanto does this as there isn’t a peer reviewed study on the corruption that flows from the corporate world into our schools, aka, overpriced degree factories. If you don’t accept this as a reality, I’ll find you a peer reviewed study on the increasing rate of naivety in grown people. Thats actually incorrect Jacob. There is a significant amount of information backed by credible sources to indicate that health outcomes from non-GMO foods are the same as GMO foods. Here is a study done on 100 BILLION feed animals over a two decade period. She earned her B.S. from the University of Melbourne in Australia, and both her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees were earned from the University of California, Davis, in animal science and genetics, respectively. The data starts in 1983 through 2011, and GMOs were first introduced in 1996. So if GMO foods cause cancer or tumors or birth defects why did animal health actually improve? Why don’t we see large populations of feed animals rotting in fields as we would expect if GMO foods were dangerous? What I was trying to say with my above comment is that there is research on both sides of this argument and the data points to GMOs being safe for human consumption. However, there are still some studies that show otherwise so we need to continue to pursue that information. You will not be able to prove they are safe, you can only prove they are as safe as non-GMO foods, which is what the large majority of studies prove. I suggest you take a look at the study in my above comment in red text. One more thing to add here, Jacob. The reason I found this article was because I had to write an essay about GMO and non-GMO food safety for college. I had to read multiple academic sources, multiple opinion articles, multiple articles from both sides of this argument and then produce a lengthy essay that combines all this information into one piece. The reason I was putting this information up for others is because I know others have come to this article seeking information about GMO foods. I know many of those people are not in college or may not have a college degree. I was attempting to put the information that I found up here in a concise manner to help others. It is completely up to you if you want to read the two studies that I have linked (in red text), but if you are looking for more information just as I was then I hope what I found was helpful to you. This article by Megan Norris was one of many sources of information that I used. For anyone else looking up the safety of GMO foods you should know the facts and do your own research. Be careful of any articles that give you ‘facts’ but do not back it up with citations or sources. After reading a lot of the comments I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of these readers are far more intelligent and informed than the person who went to Harvard. Thank god for the internet and being able to find out the truth. Hello everyone, I had to read through till the comment section just to understand what’s going on here. I’m doing my ex-girlfriend’s assignment while she’s with her new boyfriend. 🙂 but yeah, the new age man is really trying to make life better for women, so I agreed to help with her education. I have a simple question(s): Finding that GMO research has concluded that they don’t pose a serious risk to the human body, and seeing that a lot of people are still against them, are these people the anti-vaxxers of food? If you thought of GMOs as vaccinated food, would you still opt for them or the none vaccinated seed/fruits/veggies? The aim is to make them better right? like to not have them rot fast or be attacked by potentially poisonous but naturally occurring organisms. Anyway, this is how I see it. GMOs will always have an effect of some magnitude, and even if they won’t show now, they might show in 3000 years to come. LIfe is about adaptation and evolution, so superbugs will remain on the rise, and the same level of protection we pump in our plants/food and will eventually follow the flow of energy cycle, and bits of each’s contents will somehow end up in our system. but yeah, try to use that analogy against a profit-driven industry. I say, let’s go on with it. You never know when the next breakthrough will save lives. A big thanks to the writer of this article. I am actually doing an assignment and have to compare different 4 articles to find which one do answer my question on GMOs. Wooow i found this as best and interesting. I didnt even have a knowledge on GMOS as im a commerce student but now im no more left out. Thanks to the internet This is why places like Harvard need to be fact checked. Just because it’s Harvard doesn’t mean it’s credible. Now we have countless lawsuits against Monsanto for glyphosate poisoning and several lawsuits have been awarded millions in damages. Great job Ivy league! Who the globalist masters you serve? hello my name is jennifer taylor and i am a 47 year old stay at home and antivax mom. i was looking into gmos after hearing the nasty rumors from some of my gal pals, and found your article. to be honest, i don’t think its right spreading this misinformation that gmos are safe. both vaccines and gmos are dangerous abominations born from labs that can harm our children. i am the mother of 4 and i think its disgusting how you can post this article knowing you are disabling and injuring millions of american kids out there. in fact, i am contact with my lawyer right now, contacting in the hopes of getting this article taken down. goodbye There ya go! DREAM BIG! Maybe your lawyer can just shut down Harvard in its entirety. After this, they can get started on the process of shutting down her references and then their references and so on, all the way until they get to……….nevermind! Just tell your lawyer to shut down the internet. That may be easier. I think we all have to consider that GMOs are a new concept and that the data we have is not conclusive. Even some sources admit that they do not know and cannot predict the long term effects of GMOs and according to studies made in 2015, they were often wrong about the general safety of GMOs. This caused scientists to review their work, so to be honest this is a new subject that we sill cannot be certain about but in the end should be up to the consumer. haha true. I am doing this research for an exam and i did not expect gen z rollin up in the comments. usualy its fourty year old repuplican facebook parents that comment on controversial stuff like this. Hi, Thanks for sharing such an amazing post on GMO products. Above all of these, I was looking was something like this and find this very helpful. Thanks again for sharing such an amazing post! Best Regards. Can you please change the photo for this article. I don’t think it is necessary to contribute to the idea that the only thing worth protecting in a woman is her baby. Wonderful how the man gets kidney’s and a liver, maybe we could add some lungs and a heart to the lady. Glad you remembered his balls tho, how would we ever know it is an all important male without them. GMOs are just a way to help fight world hunger. Have you heard of food security? Don’t you want to stop hearing about the starving people in Africa? It’ll take time, but eventually, GM food will be available to almost every country. I say “almost” because of the bans and restrictions in France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Although, GMOs are technically in almost every food. The most I’ve seen is corn syrup or fructose corn syrup. ummary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer. GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity. Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment. In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato [6]. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats’ health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals. Three years earlier, a separate group had found the same results for a GMO tomato and a GMO sweet pepper [7]. These researchers had split rats into four diet groups: non-GMO tomato, GMO tomato, non-GMO sweet pepper, and GMO sweet pepper. They fed the rats over 7,000 times the average human daily consumption of either GMO or non-GMO tomato or sweet pepper for 30 days and monitored their overall health. Finally, they carried out histopathology and again found no differences in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney, spleen, or reproductive organs of GMO versus non-GMO fed rats. Despite massive ingestion of GMO potato, tomato, or sweet pepper, these studies demonstrated no differences in the vitality or health of the animals, even at the microscopic level. Experiments like these on humans would be completely unethical. Fortunately, prior to these studies years of work have demonstrated that rodents, like mice and rats, are acceptable models for humans, meaning rodent responses to drugs, chemicals, and foods can predict human response. Rat feeding studies like these, in which rats are fed a potential toxic item and monitored for adverse effects, are considered both specific and sensitive for monitoring toxicity of foods and widely used in the food regulation industry [1]. The test of time: GMOs and their effect on our offspring Although scientists have been able to demonstrate that GMOs are not toxic to the animals that eat them, as described above and elsewhere, what about side effects being passed on to our next generations? To discern whether GMO crops affect fertility or embryos during gestation, a group from South Dakota State University again turned to studies on rats. In this case, the rats were eating a type of GMO corn, more commonly known as Bt corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a microbe that produces insecticidal endotoxin and has been used as a topical pesticide against insects since 1961 (see this article). To allow corn to directly generate this endotoxin, scientists introduced a gene from Bt into the genetic material (DNA) of corn. To address buildup of toxicity over time, this group monitored the GMO-eating rats not only for the lifetime of one generation, but also three additional generations. For each generation, they tracked the fertility of parents and compared the health of the embryos from parents that ate Bt corn to those with parents that did not [8]. Toxic effects can arise in many places and in many ways, but some organs are more susceptible to damage than others, and monitoring them is a good readout for other difficult-to-see effects. Testes are considered a particularly sensitive organ for toxicity tests because of the high degree of cell divisions and thus high susceptibility to cellular or molecular toxins. To examine the affect of Bt corn on testicular health, the researchers tracked testicular development in fetal, postnatal, pubertal, and adult rats for all four generations. The group found no change in testicular health or litter sizes in any generation. Likewise, ingestion by pregnant mothers had no effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development of her offspring. Other groups have monitored toxicity over time as well. For example, the group studying the bar GMO potato also wanted to see if organs and reproductive health were sensitive to GMOs over long exposure times [5]. To do this, they examined the fertility and gestation periods of GMO-eating mothers compared to non-GMO-eating mothers for five generations. They tracked animal body weight, bone, eye, and thymus development, and general retardation. Like the studies on Bt corn, in all cases, they found no significant differences between the GMO potato and non-GMO potato diets, suggesting that there is no buildup or inheritance of toxicity, even over multiple generations. Figure 1. Work from independent researchers has investigated various aspects of GMO safety, especially concerning consumer health and toxicity. Can GMOs change our genes? Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food. To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic. Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5]. A strong argument for GMO health safety After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources. Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University. This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food. According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don’t care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let’s shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? – Barry? – Adam? – Oan you believe this is happening? – I can’t. I’ll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I’m excited. Here’s the graduate. We’re very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B’s. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. – You got lint on your fuzz. – Ow! That’s me! – Wave to us! We’ll be in row 118,000. – Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! – Hey, Adam. – Hey, Barry. – Is that fuzz gel? – A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I’d make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I’m glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. – Hi, Barry. – Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. – Hear about Frankie? – Yeah. – You going to the funeral? – No, I’m not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don’t waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That’s why we don’t need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp… under the circumstances. – Well, Adam, today we are men. – We are! – Bee-men. – Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of… …9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it’s just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. – Wonder what it’ll be like? – A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as… Honey! – That girl was hot. – She’s my cousin! – She is? – Yes, we’re all cousins. – Right. You’re right. – At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. – What do you think he makes? – Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. – What does that do? – Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it’s done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you’ll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn’t know that. What’s the difference? You’ll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven’t had one day off in 27 million years. So you’ll just work us to death? We’ll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! “What’s the difference?” How can you say that? One job forever? That’s an insane choice to have to make. I’m relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We’re bees. We’re the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don’t know. But you know what I’m talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. – Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! – Wow. I’ve never seen them this close. They know what it’s like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don’t come back. – Hey, Jocks! – Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You’re monsters! You’re sky freaks! I love it! I love it! – I wonder where they were. – I don’t know. Their day’s not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can’tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That’s more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It’s just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you’re wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren’t they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. – Oouple of Hive Harrys. – Let’s have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! – Oh, my! – I never thought I’d knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn’t it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We’re hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. – Six miles, huh? – Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you’re not up for it. – Maybe I am. – You are not! We’re going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you’re interested in? – Well, there’s a lot of choices. – But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It’s a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn’t right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That’s a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son’s not sure he wants to go into honey! – Barry, you are so funny sometimes. – I’m not trying to be funny. You’re not funny! You’re going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! – You’re gonna be a stirrer? – No one’s listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I’m gonna get an ant tattoo! Let’s open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I’ll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody “dawg”! I’m so proud. – We’re starting work today! – Today’s the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal… – Is it still available? – Hang on. Two left! One of them’s yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. – What’d you get? – Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. – You want to go first? – No, you go. Oh, my. What’s available? Restroom attendant’s open, not for the reason you think. – Any chance of getting the Krelman? – Sure, you’re on. I’m sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey’s always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He’s dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That’s life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should… Barry? Barry! All right, we’ve got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine… What happened to you? Where are you? – I’m going out. – Out? Out where? – Out there. – Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You’re gonna die! You’re crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone’s feeling brave, there’s a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. – Look at that. – Isn’t that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck’s restricted. It’s OK, Lou. We’re gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. – Thank you. – OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy’s in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! – That’s awful. – And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. – Antennae, check. – Nectar pack, check. – Wings, check. – Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let’s move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I’m out! I can’t believe I’m out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It’s got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! – Ever see pollination up close? – No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, a pinch on that one. See that? It’s a little bit of magic. That’s amazing. Why do we do that? That’s pollen power. More pollen, more flowers, more nectar, more honey for us. Oool. I’m picking up a lot of bright yellow. Oould be daisies. Don’t we need those? Oopy that visual. Wait. One of these flowers seems to be on the move. Say again? You’re reporting a moving flower? Affirmative. That was on the line! This is the coolest. What is it? I don’t know, but I’m loving this color. It smells good. Not like a flower, but I like it. Yeah, fuzzy. Ohemical-y. Oareful, guys. It’s a little grabby. My sweet lord of bees! Oandy-brain, get off there! Problem! – Guys! – This could be bad. Affirmative. Very close. Gonna hurt. Mama’s little boy. You are way out of position, rookie! Ooming in at you like a missile! Help me! I don’t think these are flowers. – Should we tell him? – I think he knows. What is this?! Match point! You can start packing up, honey, because you’re about to eat it! Yowser! Gross. There’s a bee in the car! – Do something! – I’m driving! – Hi, bee. – He’s back here! He’s going to sting me! Nobody move. If you don’t move, he won’t sting you. Freeze! He blinked! Spray him, Granny! What are you doing?! Wow… the tension level out here is unbelievable. I gotta get home. Oan’t fly in rain. Oan’t fly in rain. Oan’t fly in rain. Mayday! Mayday! Bee going down! Ken, could you close the window please? Ken, could you close the window please? Oheck out my new resume. I made it into a fold-out brochure. You see? Folds out. Oh, no. More humans. I don’t need this. What was that? Maybe this time. This time. This time. This time! This time! This… Drapes! That is diabolical. It’s fantastic. It’s got all my special skills, even my top-ten favorite movies. What’s number one? Star Wars? Nah, I don’t go for that… …kind of stuff. No wonder we shouldn’t talk to them. They’re out of their minds. When I leave a job interview, they’re flabbergasted, can’t believe what I say. There’s the sun. Maybe that’s a way out. I don’t remember the sun having a big 75 on it. I predicted global warming. I could feel it getting hotter. At first I thought it was just me. Wait! Stop! Bee! Stand back. These are winter boots. Wait! Don’t kill him! You know I’m allergic to them! This thing could kill me! Why does his life have less value than yours? Why does his life have any less value than mine? Is that your statement? I’m just saying all life has value. You don’t know what he’s capable of feeling. My brochure! There you go, little guy. I’m not scared of him. It’s an allergic thing. Put that on your resume brochure. My whole face could puff up. Make it one of your special skills. Knocking someone out is also a special skill. Right. Bye, Vanessa. Thanks. – Vanessa, next week? Yogurt night? – Sure, Ken. You know, whatever. – You could put carob chips on there. – Bye. – Supposed to be less calories. – Bye. I gotta say something. She saved my life. I gotta say something. All right, here it goes. Nah. What would I say? I could really get in trouble. It’s a bee law. You’re not supposed to talk to a human. I can’t believe I’m doing this. I’ve got to. Oh, I can’t do it. Oome on! No. Yes. No. Do it. I can’t. How should I start it? “You like jazz?” No, that’s no good. Here she comes! Speak, you fool! Hi! I’m sorry. – You’re talking. – Yes, I know. You’re talking! I’m so sorry. No, it’s OK. It’s fine. I know I’m dreaming. But I don’t recall going to bed. Well, I’m sure this is very disconcerting. This is a bit of a surprise to me. I mean, you’re a bee! I am. And I’m not supposed to be doing this, but they were all trying to kill me. And if it wasn’t for you… I had to thank you. It’s just how I was raised. That was a little weird. – I’m talking with a bee. – Yeah. I’m talking to a bee. And the bee is talking to me! I just want to say I’m grateful. I’ll leave now. – Wait! How did you learn to do that? – What? The talking thing. Same way you did, I guess. “Mama, Dada, honey.” You pick it up. – That’s very funny. – Yeah. Bees are funny. If we didn’t laugh, we’d cry with what we have to deal with. Anyway… Oan I… …get you something? – Like what? I don’t know. I mean… I don’t know. Ooffee? I don’t want to put you out. It’s no trouble. It takes two minutes. – It’s just coffee. – I hate to impose. – Don’t be ridiculous! – Actually, I would love a cup. Hey, you want rum cake? – I shouldn’t. – Have some. – No, I can’t. – Oome on! I’m trying to lose a couple micrograms. – Where? – These stripes don’t help. You look great! I don’t know if you know anything about fashion. Are you all right? No. He’s making the tie in the cab as they’re flying up Madison. He finally gets there. He runs up the steps into the church. The wedding is on. And he says, “Watermelon? I thought you said Guatemalan. Why would I marry a watermelon?” Is that a bee joke? That’s the kind of stuff we do. Yeah, different. So, what are you gonna do, Barry? About work? I don’t know. I want to do my part for the hive, but I can’t do it the way they want. I know how you feel. – You do? – Sure. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I wanted to be a florist. – Really? – My only interest is flowers. Our new queen was just elected with that same campaign slogan. Anyway, if you look… There’s my hive right there. See it? You’re in Sheep Meadow! Yes! I’m right off the Turtle Pond! No way! I know that area. I lost a toe ring there once. – Why do girls put rings on their toes? – Why not? – It’s like putting a hat on your knee. – Maybe I’ll try that. – You all right, ma’am? – Oh, yeah. Fine. Just having two cups of coffee! Anyway, this has been great. Thanks for the coffee. Yeah, it’s no trouble. Sorry I couldn’t finish it. If I did, I’d be up the rest of my life. Are you…? Oan I take a piece of this with me? Sure! Here, have a crumb. – Thanks! – Yeah. All right. Well, then… I guess I’ll see you around. Or not. OK, Barry. And thank you so much again… for before. Oh, that? That was nothing. Well, not nothing, but… Anyway… This can’t possib

Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer. GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity.

yes

Biotechnology

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?

yes_statement

"genetically" modified foods are safe to eat. it is safe to eat "genetically" modified foods

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/genetically-modified-foods-are-safe-to-eat-report-finds/

Major science group weighs in on safety of genetically modified foods

Major science group weighs in on safety of genetically modified foods Corn, potatoes, apples, soybeans... about 80 percent of the food in America's grocery stores is genetically modified, and a new report from a leading science organization finds it's generally safe for humans and the environment. The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded Tuesday that tinkering with the genetics of what we eat -- adding a gene from another species -- doesn't produce the "Frankenfood" monster some opponents claim it does. But it isn't feeding the world with substantially increased yields, as proponents predicted. The 408-page report was two years in the making and included a review by 20 experts of more than 900 studies. It received more than 700 public comments, as well. The authors conclude that there's "no substantiated evidence that foods from GE [genetically engineered] crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops," and that regulators need to make their safety focus more on the end-product of the food that's made rather than the nuts and bolts of how it's made. The report also found that when farms switched from conventional crops to the engineered varieties, there was no substantial change in their yield. Production in general is increasing in agriculture, but U.S. Department of Agriculture data don't show that genetically engineered crops are increasing at a higher rate, despite experimental results suggest that they should, the report said. "People who were against GMOs are very happy because it said GMO crops didn't increase yields, which was the whole premise of doing that. And obviously, the GMO companies said they're not harming health," Agus said on "CBS This Morning." While the report said there's no evidence of environmental problems caused by genetically modified crops, pesticide resistance is a problem. Farms that use genetically modified crops in general are helped, but it may be a different story for smaller farmers and in poorer areas of the world. Most of the modified plants are soybean, cotton, corn and canola, and in most cases, genetic tinkering has made them resistant to certain herbicides and insects. "Farmers in general are gaining," with less pesticide use and a bit higher yield, academy committee chairman Fred Gould said at a Tuesday news conference. The report waltzed a bit around the hot political issue of whether or not genetically modified food should be labeled. The study's authors said labels aren't needed for food safety reasons but potentially could be justified for the sake of transparency and social and cultural factors - along the lines of "Made in America" labels. That stance was praised by some environmental and consumer groups, but criticized by some scientists as unnecessary because the food poses no unique risks. "Transparency is key," said Agus. "All of us have a right to eat whatever we want ... at the same time, if we're going to learn from it and say what food affects me, I need to know what's in it," he added. The nuanced report also said it is important not to make sweeping statements on genetically engineered foods. The National Academy, established by President Abraham Lincoln to provide scientific advice, has issued reports before saying it could find no safety problem with eating genetically modified food. But Gould, of North Carolina State University, said this report is different because his study team started by listening to critics of such foods and examined anew hundreds of studies. "To some extent we know more about some genetically engineered food than we do about other food," committee member Dominique Brossard of the University of Wisconsin said. "There are limits to what can be known about any food. That's something we're not used to hearing as consumers." Many scientists who work on the issue but weren't part of the study team lauded the report as sensible, but not surprising. Mark Sorrells, a fellow at Cornell's Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, said the report is "very well balanced, accurate, and reiterates much of what has already been published many times." "Science is science, facts are facts," said Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor of biochemistry and food science at the University of Illinois, in an email. "There's just no sound basis for their opposition just as there was never any scientific basis to believe GM plants should be viewed any differently than any other." One dissenter was Charles Benbrook, who used to be at Washington State University but is now a private consultant. He said he feels the risks of genetically engineered food are more serious than more mainstream scientists think they are, and that the human health assessments aren't ample enough. Some groups critical of genetically engineered foods criticized the report before it came out. Food & Water Watch said the National Academy is taking funding from biotechnology firms and using "pro-GMO scientists" to write its reports. The report was funded by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the New Venture Fund, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the academy -- none of which have direct connections to the agricultural biotechnology industry. It was peer reviewed by outside experts and committee members are vetted for financial conflicts of interests, said academy spokesperson William Kearney. As for the corporate side, Eric Sachs of Monsanto Scientific Affairs, said, "After 30 year of research and assessments, the science and safety behind GE crops has been well-established and strongly supported by the scientific community..." Still, Agus said Monsanto's original premise that genetically modified crops would increase yield dramatically and reduce worldwide hunger has yet to be proven. "We haven't seen that data yet," Agus said. Unlike many scientists, Marion Nestle of New York University, who was a reviewer but not a report author, said, "The report reveals how little is known about the effects of GE foods." If the people behind the report want to end the polarization over these foods, Nestle said, "This won't do the trick."

Major science group weighs in on safety of genetically modified foods Corn, potatoes, apples, soybeans... about 80 percent of the food in America's grocery stores is genetically modified, and a new report from a leading science organization finds it's generally safe for humans and the environment. The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded Tuesday that tinkering with the genetics of what we eat -- adding a gene from another species -- doesn't produce the "Frankenfood" monster some opponents claim it does. But it isn't feeding the world with substantially increased yields, as proponents predicted. The 408-page report was two years in the making and included a review by 20 experts of more than 900 studies. It received more than 700 public comments, as well. The authors conclude that there's "no substantiated evidence that foods from GE [genetically engineered] crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops," and that regulators need to make their safety focus more on the end-product of the food that's made rather than the nuts and bolts of how it's made. The report also found that when farms switched from conventional crops to the engineered varieties, there was no substantial change in their yield. Production in general is increasing in agriculture, but U.S. Department of Agriculture data don't show that genetically engineered crops are increasing at a higher rate, despite experimental results suggest that they should, the report said. "People who were against GMOs are very happy because it said GMO crops didn't increase yields, which was the whole premise of doing that. And obviously, the GMO companies said they're not harming health," Agus said on "CBS This Morning." While the report said there's no evidence of environmental problems caused by genetically modified crops, pesticide resistance is a problem. Farms that use genetically modified crops in general are helped, but it may be a different story for smaller farmers and in poorer areas of the world.

yes

Biotechnology

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?

yes_statement

"genetically" modified foods are safe to eat. it is safe to eat "genetically" modified foods

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/genetically-modified-food-consumer-attitudes-science-382922/

Genetically modified food: Would you eat it if you understood the ...

A team of psychologists and biologists from the University of Rochester, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and Cardiff University in Wales, set out to discover if consumers’ attitudes toward genetically modified food would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is "yes." (Getty Images photo) “We can makes crops better, more resilient, and more profitable and easier for farmers to grow, so that we can provide more crops around the world,” he says. Yet the practice of altering foods genetically, through the introduction of a gene from a different organism, has courted controversy right from the get-go. While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association, only about one third of consumers share that view. One reason for the divide is that critics of genetically modified food have been vocal, often decrying it as “unnatural” or “Frankenfood”—in stark contrast to a 2016 review of published research that found no convincing evidence for negative health or environmental effects of GM foods. Jonathon McPhetres. (University of Rochester photo / J. Adam Fenster) A team of psychologists and biologists from the University of Rochester, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and Cardiff University in Wales, set out to discover if the schism could be overcome; that is, to see if consumers’ attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. “Political orientation and demographics inform attitudes and we can’t change those,” says McPhetres, the study’s lead author. “But we can teach people about the science behind GMOs, and that seems to be effective in allowing people to make more informed decisions about the products that they use or avoid.” In a series of studies, the team discovered that people’s existing knowledge about GM food is the greatest determining factor of their attitudes towards the food—overriding all other tested factors. In fact, existing GM knowledge was more than 19 times higher as a determinant—compared to the influence of demographic factors such as a person’s education, socioeconomic status, race, age, and gender. The team replicated the US findings in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where opposition to modified food has tended to be higher than in the United States, and where GM food is highly regulated in response to consumer concerns. In one study, using a representative US sample, participants responded on a scale of 1 (don’t care if foods have been genetically modified), 2 (willing to eat, but prefer unmodified foods), to 3 (will not eat genetically modified foods). Next, the team asked 11 general science knowledge questions—such as whether the universe began with a huge explosion, antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria, electrons are smaller than atoms, and how long it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. In study 2, participants took an additional quiz about their knowledge about the science, methods, and benefits of GM foods and procedures. The team found that specific knowledge about GM foods and procedures is independent from a person’s general science knowledge—making the first (GM knowledge) a nearly twice as strong predictor of GM attitudes. Genetically modified food: A guide to overcoming skepticism The researchers followed up by conducting a five-week longitudinal study with 231 undergraduates in the US to test, first, if a lack of knowledge about GM foods could be overcome by teaching participants the basic science behind GM technology, and second, if greater knowledge would alter attitudes. McPhetres worked with Rochester colleague Jennifer Brisson, an associate biology professor, who vetted the students’ learning materials. The team discovered that learning the underlying science led to more positive attitudes towards genetically modified foods, a greater willingness to eat them, and a lowered perception of GM foods as risky. Their findings, argues the team, lend direct support for the deficit model of science attitudes, which—in broad terms—holds that the public’s skepticism towards science and technology is largely due to a lack of understanding, or absence of pertinent information. The team’s online modules avoid confrontational approaches “which threaten preexisting beliefs and convictions,” suggesting a relatively simple guide for how to overcome skepticism about GM foods: focus on the actual underlying science not the message. Knowledge and appreciation of science—“that’s the kind of information that people need to make informed decisions about products they use, and the food they eat,” say McPhetres who’s now heading to Canada for a joint post-doctoral appointment between the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Read more Does awe lead to greater interest in science? In a recent study, participants who watched awe-inducing nature videos or virtual reality simulations consistently reported greater interest in science and greater awareness of gaps in their knowledge. Food for thought—and research In fields like anthropology and linguistics, scholars must earn the trust of the communities in which they work. A basic key to that trust involves the sharing of food.

A team of psychologists and biologists from the University of Rochester, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and Cardiff University in Wales, set out to discover if consumers’ attitudes toward genetically modified food would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is "yes." (Getty Images photo) “We can makes crops better, more resilient, and more profitable and easier for farmers to grow, so that we can provide more crops around the world,” he says. Yet the practice of altering foods genetically, through the introduction of a gene from a different organism, has courted controversy right from the get-go. While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association, only about one third of consumers share that view. One reason for the divide is that critics of genetically modified food have been vocal, often decrying it as “unnatural” or “Frankenfood”—in stark contrast to a 2016 review of published research that found no convincing evidence for negative health or environmental effects of GM foods. Jonathon McPhetres. (University of Rochester photo / J. Adam Fenster) A team of psychologists and biologists from the University of Rochester, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and Cardiff University in Wales, set out to discover if the schism could be overcome; that is, to see if consumers’ attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. “Political orientation and demographics inform attitudes and we can’t change those,” says McPhetres, the study’s lead author. “But we can teach people about the science behind GMOs, and that seems to be effective in allowing people to make more informed decisions about the products that they use or avoid.” In a series of studies, the team discovered that people’s existing knowledge about GM food is the greatest determining factor of their attitudes towards the food—overriding all other tested factors.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

yes_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" exist.

https://blog.publix.com/publix/all-about-hybrid-apples/

All About Hybrid Apples | Publix Super Market | The Publix Checkout

All About Hybrid Apples They say a hybrid apple a day keeps the doctor away. Well, that’s not exactly the saying, but chances are, your favorite apple is probably a hybrid. These apples are a cross between two apples and are created in one of two ways: cross-breeding or chance seedlings. Cross breeding is performed on purpose to create a specific kind of apple, whereas chance seedlings happen by chance when apples are grown in the field. Normally, it takes around 18-20 years to successfully make a cross-breed apple that can be sold on our shelves. Why Do Hybrids Exist? Hybrid apples are grown for a few reasons: taste, color and stability. The taste is usually the most important factor, since the apples pull their taste from their parentage. It’s not uncommon for two apples on opposite ends of the spectrum, like tart and sweet, to pull together to create a mid-range apple. Our hybrid apples are natural crosses and non-GMO, so you can enjoy them without worrying about being genetically modified. From Honeycrisps to Fujis to Galas, we’re breaking down our favorite hybrid apples. Apple Varieties Honeycrisp: Taste- Crisp, sweet, a little tart and very juicy Look- Yellow background with a blushing scarlet overlay Cross between- Sweet Keepsake apple and mildly sweet apple that was never named Origin- They were discovered in 1960 after being a part of a breeding program at the University of Minnesota and hit shelves in grocery stores across the country in 1991. Gala: Taste- Sweet Look- Red blush coloring Cross between- Sweet Kidd’s Orange apple and sweet Golden Delicious apples Origin- They were discovered in 1934 in New Zealand and introduced to us commercially in the 1970s. Their sweet flavoring has made them one of the most popular apples across the world. Fuji: Taste- Crunchy, sweet Look- Slight red blush and red stripes Cross between- Mildly sweet Red Delicious apple and sweet Ralls Janet apples Origin- They originated in Japan in the 1930s and were introduced to the US in 1962. Most believe these apples were named after Mt. Fuji, but they were named after the town they were created in, Fujisaki, Japan. Ambrosia: Taste- Sweet and honey-like Look- A fluorescent pink blush and creamy yellow bi-coloring Cross between- Sweet Golden Delicious apple and sweet Starking Delicious apple Origin- These apples were discovered in Canada as a chance seedling in 1987. The first time the public saw these apples was during an apple festival in Vancouver. Pink Lady: Taste– Sweet and tart Look- Pinky, blushed exteriors Cross between- Sweet Golden Delicious apple and tart and mildly sweet Lady Williams apple Origin- These apples originated in 1973 in Australia and made their way to the US by the late 1990s. Evercrisp: New to our stores! Make sure to check out the latest hybrid apple, the Evercrisp. This apple is a cross between a Honeycrisp and Fuji apple. Pick up this sweet apple at your local store for the perfect snack. Jackie J. became a Publix associate in 2017 after deciding to take her love of food to the next level. She began working with the Social Media team at that time and she immediately fell in love with life at Publix. In her spare time, she bakes to relax and creates yummy morsels for friends and family to munch on. When she isn’t working, you can probably find her playing with her cat and dog (Nila and Oreo), at a theme park or watching a Harry Potter Movie Marathon. 2 Comments on “All About Hybrid Apples” Thanks for the question, Jeffery. I reached out to our buyer and was told that these apples were discontinued due to slow movement. The buyer recommended reaching out to your local Produce team, because they might be able to special order them for you.

All About Hybrid Apples They say a hybrid apple a day keeps the doctor away. Well, that’s not exactly the saying, but chances are, your favorite apple is probably a hybrid. These apples are a cross between two apples and are created in one of two ways: cross-breeding or chance seedlings. Cross breeding is performed on purpose to create a specific kind of apple, whereas chance seedlings happen by chance when apples are grown in the field. Normally, it takes around 18-20 years to successfully make a cross-breed apple that can be sold on our shelves. Why Do Hybrids Exist? Hybrid apples are grown for a few reasons: taste, color and stability. The taste is usually the most important factor, since the apples pull their taste from their parentage. It’s not uncommon for two apples on opposite ends of the spectrum, like tart and sweet, to pull together to create a mid-range apple. Our hybrid apples are natural crosses and non-GMO, so you can enjoy them without worrying about being genetically modified. From Honeycrisps to Fujis to Galas, we’re breaking down our favorite hybrid apples. Apple Varieties Honeycrisp: Taste- Crisp, sweet, a little tart and very juicy Look- Yellow background with a blushing scarlet overlay Cross between- Sweet Keepsake apple and mildly sweet apple that was never named Origin- They were discovered in 1960 after being a part of a breeding program at the University of Minnesota and hit shelves in grocery stores across the country in 1991. Gala: Taste- Sweet Look- Red blush coloring Cross between- Sweet Kidd’s Orange apple and sweet Golden Delicious apples Origin- They were discovered in 1934 in New Zealand and introduced to us commercially in the 1970s. Their sweet flavoring has made them one of the most popular apples across the world. Fuji: Taste- Crunchy, sweet Look- Slight red blush and red stripes Cross between- Mildly sweet Red Delicious apple and sweet Ralls Janet apples Origin-

no

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

yes_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" exist.

https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/10/arctic-fuji-apple-gains-approval-despite-anti-gmo-opposition/

Arctic Fuji apple gains approval despite anti-GMO opposition | Food ...

Arctic Fuji apple gains approval despite anti-GMO opposition A third genetically modified apple variety, the Arctic Fuji, has gained U.S. approval and the grower responsible for it plans next to seek approval for genetically modified Arctic Gala apples. Neal Carter founded Okanagen Speciality Fruits in 1996 in Summerland, British Columbia. The company has developed and gained approval for genetically modified apples that have non-browning properties. Developed by bioresource engineer Neal Carter, founder and president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. in Summerland, British Columbia, the Arctic Fuji joins the Arctic golden delicious and granny smith varieties. All three varieties have been genetically modified to reduce browning. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture granted the non-browning Arctic Fuji approval in late September. As part of the review process, the agency sought public comment on the genetically modified organism (GMO). The 30-day comment period from Aug. 12 through Sept. 12 had netted only 19 comments as of Aug. 25, with 18 of those comments in support of approval for the GMO Fuji. By the Sept. 12 deadline, 626 comments had been filed with APHIS, with those against approval outnumbering those in favor by about 10 to 1. Among those commenters opposed to the GMO apple was the Center for Food Safety, which attached a letter signed by more than 25,000 of its members opposing the apple. Many of the comments against approval for the Arctic Fuji stated flat opposition to any and all GMOs. They also asked for foods to be labeled if they contain GMOs. Some opponents said browning of sliced apples can be controlled with a lemon-juice solution, suggesting the genetic modification is unnecessary. Comments in support of the non-browning Arctic Fuji cited reduction of food waste and convenience as their primary reasons for encouraging the government to allow the apple to be sold in the U.S. “The response to Arctic Fuji apples and our overall platform to deliver direct benefits to consumers has been encouraging,” bioresource engineer and fruit grower Carter said in a news release. “We are confident the positive feedback we have received will translate to the marketplace.” In August, Carter told the Capital Press that about 1,000 to 1,200, 40-pound boxes of Arctic Goldens will be sliced and sold in test marketing in grocery stores in the western U.S. this fall. The genetically modified apples from Okanagan Specialty Fruit Inc. have been altered through a reduction of the enzyme polyphenol oxidase, the primary cause of browning in fruit, according to the news release. (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, clickhere.)

Arctic Fuji apple gains approval despite anti-GMO opposition A third genetically modified apple variety, the Arctic Fuji, has gained U.S. approval and the grower responsible for it plans next to seek approval for genetically modified Arctic Gala apples. Neal Carter founded Okanagen Speciality Fruits in 1996 in Summerland, British Columbia. The company has developed and gained approval for genetically modified apples that have non-browning properties. Developed by bioresource engineer Neal Carter, founder and president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. in Summerland, British Columbia, the Arctic Fuji joins the Arctic golden delicious and granny smith varieties. All three varieties have been genetically modified to reduce browning. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture granted the non-browning Arctic Fuji approval in late September. As part of the review process, the agency sought public comment on the genetically modified organism (GMO). The 30-day comment period from Aug. 12 through Sept. 12 had netted only 19 comments as of Aug. 25, with 18 of those comments in support of approval for the GMO Fuji. By the Sept. 12 deadline, 626 comments had been filed with APHIS, with those against approval outnumbering those in favor by about 10 to 1. Among those commenters opposed to the GMO apple was the Center for Food Safety, which attached a letter signed by more than 25,000 of its members opposing the apple. Many of the comments against approval for the Arctic Fuji stated flat opposition to any and all GMOs. They also asked for foods to be labeled if they contain GMOs. Some opponents said browning of sliced apples can be controlled with a lemon-juice solution, suggesting the genetic modification is unnecessary.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

yes_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" exist.

https://www.grocerydive.com/news/grocery--new-gmo-apples-could-show-if-qr-code-labels-work/535548/

New GMO apples could show if QR code labels work | Grocery Dive

New GMO apples could show if QR code labels work Dive Brief: The first genetically modified apples to be sold in the U.S. will be appearing in select Midwestern stores in February, according to Capital Press. About 500 40-pound boxes of sliced apples from Okanagan Specialty Fruits of Summerland, B.C. will be sold in grab-and-go pouch bags in stores to be determined. The Arctic brand sliced and packaged Golden Delicious apples were grown with reduced enzyme polyphenol oxidase to prevent browning when they are sliced, bitten or bruised, with no flavor-altering additives added. These apples will be only be labeled as GMO through a QR code label, the sort of thing that the new federal GMO labeling law approved as an acceptable label. Dive Insight: The most controversial provision of the GMO labeling law that was signed by President Obama last year was the approved methods. From what is in the law, manufacturers can use an on-package statement, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-approved symbol or a QR code printed on the product label that directs consumers to a website containing the necessary information. Opponents of QR codes say that they discriminate against consumers who don't have access to smartphones, and they hide important information. USDA and stakeholders have until 2018 to work out exactly how the labeling information needs to be presented. In the meantime, with no requirements, food companies have no regulations to follow. While QR codes are beginning to appear more on food labels now through initiatives like SmartLabel, they still aren't universal. It's unclear whether consumers would know to scan the code on the apple packages to find more information. There could be a huge backlash from consumers who aren’t told upfront that the apples are GMO, as there is a popular opinion that they aren’t as healthy. A Pew Research survey conducted last year found that 37% of adults feel eating GM foods is generally safe, while 57% say they believe it is unsafe. Those numbers were large enough for the Washington apple industry to fight against approval of GMO apples because of the negative public perception that exists, fearing it could hurt overall apple sales. This may prove a good test of whether QR code labeling is effective for GMO products. It could also give policymakers and stakeholders more data to shape the still-to-be-determined labeling regulations so they best serve consumers.

New GMO apples could show if QR code labels work Dive Brief: The first genetically modified apples to be sold in the U.S. will be appearing in select Midwestern stores in February, according to Capital Press. About 500 40-pound boxes of sliced apples from Okanagan Specialty Fruits of Summerland, B.C. will be sold in grab-and-go pouch bags in stores to be determined. The Arctic brand sliced and packaged Golden Delicious apples were grown with reduced enzyme polyphenol oxidase to prevent browning when they are sliced, bitten or bruised, with no flavor-altering additives added. These apples will be only be labeled as GMO through a QR code label, the sort of thing that the new federal GMO labeling law approved as an acceptable label. Dive Insight: The most controversial provision of the GMO labeling law that was signed by President Obama last year was the approved methods. From what is in the law, manufacturers can use an on-package statement, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-approved symbol or a QR code printed on the product label that directs consumers to a website containing the necessary information. Opponents of QR codes say that they discriminate against consumers who don't have access to smartphones, and they hide important information. USDA and stakeholders have until 2018 to work out exactly how the labeling information needs to be presented. In the meantime, with no requirements, food companies have no regulations to follow. While QR codes are beginning to appear more on food labels now through initiatives like SmartLabel, they still aren't universal. It's unclear whether consumers would know to scan the code on the apple packages to find more information. There could be a huge backlash from consumers who aren’t told upfront that the apples are GMO, as there is a popular opinion that they aren’t as healthy. A Pew Research survey conducted last year found that 37% of adults feel eating GM foods is generally safe, while 57% say they believe it is unsafe.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

yes_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Apples

Arctic Apples - Wikipedia

Developing nonbrowning Arctic apples relies upon a technique called RNA interference (RNAi).[9] This approach enables silencing of PPO expression to less than 10% of its normal expression, but does not change other aspects of the apple.[3] The RNAi process is accomplished through the use of a transgene that uses gene sequences that control PPO production.[2] Promoter and terminator gene sequences are used to support the implementation of PPO suppression genes, as is a marker gene which produces a protein (called NPTII) that makes the plant tissue resistant to the antibiotickanamycin, allowing transformed plants to metabolize neomycin and kanamycin antibiotics.[10] This step is used to confirm that silencing PPO was successful.[3] Okanagan Specialty Fruits received regulatory approval for two apple varieties in Canada from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada[11] and in the US from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), part of the United States Department of Agriculture.[2] Varieties that have received U.S. approval include Arctic Golden (called GD743) and Arctic Granny (GS784) in 2015,[12] and Arctic Fuji (NF872) in 2016.[13] Arctic Golden and Arctic Granny varieties were both approved in Canada in 2015.[14] The Arctic Fuji (NF872) was approved in Canada in 2018.[15] Approval of the apple was opposed by GE Free BC and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.[16] Approval of the apples was opposed by some tree fruit associations, such as the BC Fruit Growers' Association[17] and Northwest Horticultural Council (Washington State).[18] Opposition of associations was based on concern about market backlash, not on safety of the product. The US FDA stated that the safety evaluation of Arctic apples "ensures that food safety issues were resolved prior to commercial distribution",[7] and the Government of Canada stated "that the genetically modified 'Arctic apple' is as safe for humans, livestock and the environment as conventional apples."[8] As of late 2017, the Arctic Golden variety began retail sales as packaged, preservative-free apple slices.[19] Packaging bears Arctic branding including their "snowflake" logo[20] and a QR code that can be scanned with a smartphone to inform consumers about the safety and non-browning benefits via the company website.[21] As of 2020, there were 1,350 acres (550 ha) of Arctic apple orchards in Washington state,[22] with 17 million lbs (7.7 million kg) harvested in 2021.[23]

Developing nonbrowning Arctic apples relies upon a technique called RNA interference (RNAi).[9] This approach enables silencing of PPO expression to less than 10% of its normal expression, but does not change other aspects of the apple.[3] The RNAi process is accomplished through the use of a transgene that uses gene sequences that control PPO production.[2] Promoter and terminator gene sequences are used to support the implementation of PPO suppression genes, as is a marker gene which produces a protein (called NPTII) that makes the plant tissue resistant to the antibiotickanamycin, allowing transformed plants to metabolize neomycin and kanamycin antibiotics.[10] This step is used to confirm that silencing PPO was successful.[3] Okanagan Specialty Fruits received regulatory approval for two apple varieties in Canada from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada[11] and in the US from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), part of the United States Department of Agriculture.[2] Varieties that have received U.S. approval include Arctic Golden (called GD743) and Arctic Granny (GS784) in 2015,[12] and Arctic Fuji (NF872) in 2016.[13] Arctic Golden and Arctic Granny varieties were both approved in Canada in 2015.[14] The Arctic Fuji (NF872) was approved in Canada in 2018.[15] Approval of the apple was opposed by GE Free BC and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.[16] Approval of the apples was opposed by some tree fruit associations, such as the BC Fruit Growers' Association[17] and Northwest Horticultural Council (Washington State).[18] Opposition of associations was based on concern about market backlash, not on safety of the product.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/business/gmo-apples-are-approved-for-growing-in-us.html

Gene-Altered Apples Get U.S. Approval - The New York Times

Gene-Altered Apples Get U.S. Approval The government on Friday approved the commercial planting of genetically engineered apples that are resistant to turning brown when sliced or bruised. The developer, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, says it believes the nonbrowning feature will be popular with both consumers and food service companies because it will make sliced apples more appealing. The feature could also reduce the number of apples discarded because of bruising. But many executives in the apple industry say they worry that the biotech apples, while safe to eat, will face opposition from some consumers, possibly tainting the wholesome image of the fruit that reputedly “keeps the doctor away.” They are also concerned that it could hurt exports of apples to countries that do not like genetically modified foods. “In the marketplace we participate in, there doesn’t seem to be room for genetically modified apples now,” said John Rice, co-owner of Rice Fruit Company in Gardners, Pa., which bills itself as the largest apple packer in the East. The Department of Agriculture, which approved the apples for commercial planting, said on Friday that it had considered these issues. However, it said that under the law, approval is based on whether a genetically modified crop poses a threat to other plants. The department determined that the apples posed no such risk. The so-called Arctic apples — which will be available in the Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties — are genetically engineered in a way to suppress the production of an enzyme that causes browning when cells in the apple are injured, from slicing, for example. But over time the apples will still rot and turn brown. In November, the Agriculture Department approved a genetically engineered potato developed by the J.R. Simplot Company that uses a similar technique to prevent browning. The apple will join relatively few other examples of genetically modified fresh produce, including papaya and some sweet corn. Most of the genetically modified food Americans eat is processed, containing ingredients made from engineered corn or soybeans. The engineered trait is also one of the few meant to appeal to consumers; most of the traits so far, like insect resistance and herbicide resistance, have been aimed at helping farmers. The approval is also unusual in that Okanagan, which is based in Summerland, British Columbia, is a small company. Most genetically modified crops are developed by giant seed and chemical companies like Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer. Neal Carter, the president of Okanagan, said the apple had “a lot of silent supporters” and would be popular with the food service business. “I can’t believe how many requests we’ve had just this morning to our website from people who want to buy trees,” he said. The roughly 45 investors in the privately held company include many people in the apple business, he said. It will take a few years for Arctic apples to be widely available because trees have to first be planted and then become mature enough to bear fruit. Mr. Carter said that four growers would plant a total of 20,000 trees this spring, covering a mere 20 acres or so. From 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of apples are expected to be ready by the fall of 2016, enough to provide samples to food service companies and other potential buyers. The product could reach stores, in very small quantities, in 2017, he said. Documents released by the Agriculture Department on Friday suggest the decision to approve was essentially made last May. Mr. Carter said he thought political factors had kept the approval from being announced. He said the company, which had initially requested approval in 2010, finally became so frustrated that it wrote a pointed letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack last month. A spokesman for the Agriculture Department said it took time to analyze the issues and all the comments received. There were two public comment periods that together drew more than 175,000 comments, the overwhelming majority opposed to approval. Consumer and environmental groups, who say that genetically modified crops in general are not thoroughly tested for safety, were highly critical of the decision on Friday. “This G.M.O. apple is simply unnecessary,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a statement, using the initials for “genetically modified organism.” “Apple browning is a small cosmetic issue that consumers and the industry have dealt with successfully for generations.” (Putting lemon juice or another source of vitamin C on apple slices can retard browning, though Okanagan argues that affects the taste.) The environmental groups have been pressing food companies to reject the Arctic apples. McDonald’s and Gerber have sent letters saying they had no plans to use the apples. The groups also renewed their call for genetically modified foods to be labeled as such. Mr. Carter said apples would be labeled as Arctic, with links to the company’s website, so consumers could figure out that the fruit was engineered. He said it would discuss with the Food and Drug Administration whether the apples would also be labeled as nonbrowning. But he said that labeling the fruit as genetically modified would only be “demonizing” it. The nonbrowning effect is not created by putting genes from another species into the apple’s DNA, which is the case with most genetically altered crops. Instead, the apple’s own genes are manipulated in a way that turns off the browning mechanism. Okanagan is still engaged in a voluntary consultation with the F.D.A. over the safety of the apple. Consumer groups say shutting off the browning mechanism could have unintended effects. But the Agriculture Department said the Arctic apples seemed to be nutritionally equivalent to other apples. While many in the apple industry had opposed the approval, some now say they will work to ensure that consumers know most apples are not modified and even the ones that are modified are safe. “That clear identification of the Arctic brand will help consumers make clear, informed choices if Okanagan apples do become available in stores in a few years,” Wendy Brannen, director of consumer health and public relations for the U.S. Apple Association, said in an email. A version of this article appears in print on , Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Gene-Altered Apples Get U.S. Approval. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

However, it said that under the law, approval is based on whether a genetically modified crop poses a threat to other plants. The department determined that the apples posed no such risk. The so-called Arctic apples — which will be available in the Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties — are genetically engineered in a way to suppress the production of an enzyme that causes browning when cells in the apple are injured, from slicing, for example. But over time the apples will still rot and turn brown. In November, the Agriculture Department approved a genetically engineered potato developed by the J.R. Simplot Company that uses a similar technique to prevent browning. The apple will join relatively few other examples of genetically modified fresh produce, including papaya and some sweet corn. Most of the genetically modified food Americans eat is processed, containing ingredients made from engineered corn or soybeans. The engineered trait is also one of the few meant to appeal to consumers; most of the traits so far, like insect resistance and herbicide resistance, have been aimed at helping farmers. The approval is also unusual in that Okanagan, which is based in Summerland, British Columbia, is a small company. Most genetically modified crops are developed by giant seed and chemical companies like Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer. Neal Carter, the president of Okanagan, said the apple had “a lot of silent supporters” and would be popular with the food service business. “I can’t believe how many requests we’ve had just this morning to our website from people who want to buy trees,” he said. The roughly 45 investors in the privately held company include many people in the apple business, he said. It will take a few years for Arctic apples to be widely available because trees have to first be planted and then become mature enough to bear fruit. Mr. Carter said that four growers would plant a total of 20,000 trees this spring, covering a mere 20 acres or so.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/10/07/148739/gm-apples-that-dont-brown-to-reach-us-shelves-this-fall/

GM Apples That Don't Brown to Reach U.S. Shelves This Fall | MIT ...

GM Apples That Don’t Brown to Reach U.S. Shelves This Fall A U.S. synthetic-biology conglomerate plans to begin marketing genetically modified apples this fall but won’t label them as GMOs. The so-called Arctic apples are genetically altered to suppress browning and may be offered for sale as bagged slices in up to 400 stores in the Midwest and Southern California, according to the company. The launch is the first significant test of a GMO whose modification is meant to appeal to consumers, rather than help farmers increase production, since a slow-ripening tomato called the Flavr Savr flopped in the 1990s. The modified Golden Delicious apples were developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, a privately owned company acquired for $41 million in 2015 by the Maryland biotech Intrexon. Other divisions of that company are already marketing genetically modified salmon, cloned cattle, and self-destructing mosquitoes. The company plans to sell the apples as bags of pre-sliced fruit but say they will not be labeled as “produced with genetic engineering” and will not come with any other packaging identifying them as GMOs. Instead, as allowed under a 2016 labeling law, there will be a QR code that links to a Web page with detailed information on how the apples were made. “We didn’t want put ‘GMO’ and a skull and crossbones on the package,” Neal Carter, Okanagan’s founder, said this week, during a presentation in San Francisco. A package of golden delicious apple slices. The fruit has been genetically modified so they don't turn brown. Using a technique called gene silencing, Carter and his research team engineered the apple’s DNA to produce less polyphenol oxidase, or PPO, the enzyme that causes the flesh to turn brown. Carter says slices of the engineered apples can stay free of browning as long as three weeks. To some, genetic slowing of the browning process could seem like a solution in search of a problem. Commercial apple slices are already preserved with a mixture of calcium and vitamin C, which keeps them from browning long enough to be ordered via Amazon. At home, many cooks know a squirt of lemon juice does the trick, at least for a few hours. Groups opposing GMOs have protested the introduction of Okanagan’s apples and pressured food companies including Burger King not to sell them. Friends of the Earth told the Independent that the Arctic apple is “understudied, unlabeled, and unnecessary.” Because of widespread opposition, genetically modified foods are subject to an array of labeling rules and even outright bans around the world. But David Zilberman, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley, says the apple doesn’t present any health risks and that Okanagan’s decision for discreet labeling is justified. “Cigarettes have a huge [label], but GMO is not cigarettes; it’s not poison,” he says. “There is nothing wrong with this from any perspective. Let’s see what happens. We may see more acceptance of GM.” Carter, who is eager to debate critics, says non-browning fruit could increase apple sales and reduce waste. About 45% of fruits and vegetables grown are thrown away according to the United Nations. The waste occurs during picking or shipping, by retailers, or at the hands of picky children and adults. Carter’s bigger challenge will be taking a bite out of the apple market. He says the number of acres planted with Arctic trees now stands at 250, and he expects to reach at least 1,400 by 2019. There are approximately 325,000 acres of apple trees in the U.S. Carter declined to disclose the price of the sliced fruit bags, but packages of conventional apple slices sell for about $3 to $5 each. “These next couple of months, we’re going to be learning a lot,” he says. “It’s scary from that perspective.” Get the latest updates from MIT Technology Review We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive. The latest iteration of a legacy Founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impact. Advertise with MIT Technology Review Elevate your brand to the forefront of conversation around emerging technologies that are radically transforming business. From event sponsorships to custom content to visually arresting video storytelling, advertising with MIT Technology Review creates opportunities for your brand to resonate with an unmatched audience of technology and business elite.

GM Apples That Don’t Brown to Reach U.S. Shelves This Fall A U.S. synthetic-biology conglomerate plans to begin marketing genetically modified apples this fall but won’t label them as GMOs. The so-called Arctic apples are genetically altered to suppress browning and may be offered for sale as bagged slices in up to 400 stores in the Midwest and Southern California, according to the company. The launch is the first significant test of a GMO whose modification is meant to appeal to consumers, rather than help farmers increase production, since a slow-ripening tomato called the Flavr Savr flopped in the 1990s. The modified Golden Delicious apples were developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, a privately owned company acquired for $41 million in 2015 by the Maryland biotech Intrexon. Other divisions of that company are already marketing genetically modified salmon, cloned cattle, and self-destructing mosquitoes. The company plans to sell the apples as bags of pre-sliced fruit but say they will not be labeled as “produced with genetic engineering” and will not come with any other packaging identifying them as GMOs. Instead, as allowed under a 2016 labeling law, there will be a QR code that links to a Web page with detailed information on how the apples were made. “We didn’t want put ‘GMO’ and a skull and crossbones on the package,” Neal Carter, Okanagan’s founder, said this week, during a presentation in San Francisco. A package of golden delicious apple slices. The fruit has been genetically modified so they don't turn brown. Using a technique called gene silencing, Carter and his research team engineered the apple’s DNA to produce less polyphenol oxidase, or PPO, the enzyme that causes the flesh to turn brown. Carter says slices of the engineered apples can stay free of browning as long as three weeks. To some, genetic slowing of the browning process could seem like a solution in search of a problem.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/company-release-genetically-modified-nonbrowning-apples/story?id=45034701

Company to Release Genetically Modified Nonbrowning Apples ...

Company to Release Genetically Modified Nonbrowning Apples The apples are produced by Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits. ByKATIE KINDELAN January 25, 2017, 11:38 AM 2:40 Arctic Apple varieties of Granny Smith and Golden Delicious apples are seen in an undated handout image. Courtesy Arctic Apples &#151; -- Genetically modified apples that its maker claims are nonbrowning will soon be available to customers in the U.S. The Golden Delicious apples, sold under the brand Arctic, are scheduled to arrive in a select number of grocery stores in the Midwest in February. In order to produce the nonbrowning effect, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, the Canadian-based company behind the apples, eliminated the gene responsible for producing the oxidizing enzyme that turns apples brown when they are cut open. The company said the process, which it says will prevent the apple from browning for up to three weeks, avoids the anti-browning treatments often used on fresh apple slices. "Arctic apples' nonbrowning advantage makes them very well suited to products like fresh apple slices, which typically require anti-browning treatments like calcium ascorbate to maintain their color," the company said in a statement to ABC News. "Arctic apples not only avoid the costs associated with these anti-browning solutions, they can also avoid the impact that these treatments can potentially have on the taste and texture of sliced fruit." The Organic Consumers Association, a Minnesota-based nonprofit group focused on issues such as food safety, industrial agriculture and genetic engineering, said in a statement to ABC News, "As is the case with most GMO foods, the Arctic apple never underwent rigorous independent premarket safety testing, yet these apples will come on the market unlabeled. This means that once again, consumers will be guinea pigs for the biotech industry." "Worse yet, this product is intended primarily for use by fast-food retailers and institutions, such as schools, that cater to children, who may be more vulnerable to potential health hazards," the association added. "The apple was not developed in response to consumer demand. The biggest market for the apple are restaurants and institutions that want to be able to sell apples that were sliced days or weeks ago, without concerning themselves with how fresh the produce looks or is." "Our biggest concern is that the nonbrowning technology, RNA interference, could come with a host of unknown, unintended and potentially risky health and environmental consequences," the association said. Okanagan argued the apples have met the standards of regulatory processes in Canada and the U.S. "Thanks to their nonbrowning benefit, Arctic apples can reduce food waste and help more people to eat more apples — goals that everyone can get behind," the company said in its statement. "Arctic apples have been demonstrated to be as safe and nutritious as traditional apple varieties through over a decade of study and have satisfied the rigorous U.S. and Canadian regulatory review processes." The apples do not present an issue from a health standpoint but may be an issue for consumers' tastes, according to ABC News' chief health and medical editor, Dr. Richard Besser. "I think from a health and safety standpoint there's not an issue there," he said. "People hear the word 'GMO' and they freak out. When you look at [the apple] scientifically, when you look at it molecularly, it's still the same apple, just minus that one enzyme." "As a consumer, I like my apple to turn brown. It's a sign to me that it's not quite as fresh," Besser added. "I don't want to bite into an apple and it's mushy and that's the first sign that that apple is no good."

Company to Release Genetically Modified Nonbrowning Apples The apples are produced by Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits. ByKATIE KINDELAN January 25, 2017, 11:38 AM 2:40 Arctic Apple varieties of Granny Smith and Golden Delicious apples are seen in an undated handout image. Courtesy Arctic Apples &#151; -- Genetically modified apples that its maker claims are nonbrowning will soon be available to customers in the U.S. The Golden Delicious apples, sold under the brand Arctic, are scheduled to arrive in a select number of grocery stores in the Midwest in February. In order to produce the nonbrowning effect, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, the Canadian-based company behind the apples, eliminated the gene responsible for producing the oxidizing enzyme that turns apples brown when they are cut open. The company said the process, which it says will prevent the apple from browning for up to three weeks, avoids the anti-browning treatments often used on fresh apple slices. "Arctic apples' nonbrowning advantage makes them very well suited to products like fresh apple slices, which typically require anti-browning treatments like calcium ascorbate to maintain their color," the company said in a statement to ABC News. "Arctic apples not only avoid the costs associated with these anti-browning solutions, they can also avoid the impact that these treatments can potentially have on the taste and texture of sliced fruit. " The Organic Consumers Association, a Minnesota-based nonprofit group focused on issues such as food safety, industrial agriculture and genetic engineering, said in a statement to ABC News, "As is the case with most GMO foods, the Arctic apple never underwent rigorous independent premarket safety testing, yet these apples will come on the market unlabeled.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/health/apples-genetically-modified-on-sale-soon/index.html

GMO apples | CNN

GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon Golden Delicious apples are among the Arctic's non-browning varieties. Getty Images Story highlights The USDA approved the GMO apples nearly two years ago Non-browning apples will only be available in Midwest stores for now, company says CNN — For a select few apple lovers in the US, a Golden Delicious slice will no longer turn brown as the first genetically modified apples are expected to go on sale early next month. A small amount of Arctic brand sliced and packaged Golden Delicious apples, produced by Okanagan Specialty Fruits in British Columbia, Canada, will hit the shelves of 10 stores in the Midwest in February and March, Neal Carter, the company’s founder and president, told the agricultural news website Capital Press. Arctic’s website lists the apples as being available early this year in some test markets. Carter said Midwestern stores were the first choice because they seemed like a good fit demographically and in size. He wouldn’t name the stores, stating it’s up to retailers to announce that they’ll be selling the non-browning apples. “We’re very optimistic with respect to this product because people love it at trade shows,” he said earlier this month. “It’s a great product and the eating quality is excellent.” Along with not turning brown, the apples should also becrispier in texture – possibly winning over some picky eaters. Nearly two years ago, the US Department of Agriculture approved the US’s first genetically modified apples. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service granted its approval based on “a final plant pest risk assessment that finds the GE (genetically engineered) apples are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk to agriculture and other plants in the United States … [and] deregulation is not likely to have a significant impact on the human environment,” as stated in their report. The Food and Drug Administration is not required to approve genetically engineered crops for consumption. Most companies engage in a voluntary safety review process with the FDA, and Okanagan did that. The US Apple Association was wary of Arctic’s apple after the USDA approval, but the group has since taken a more neutral stance. “US Apple supports consumer choice in the apples and apple products they select. Consumers will be able to decide whether to try the new, “non-browning” apples, and ultimately, the marketplace will determine whether there is a demand for them,” state the association on their website. Browning is natural, but… There’s nothing technically wrong with an apple that browns. It all comes down to oxygen being introduced into plant tissue when an apple is sliced, bruised or bitten. The US Apple association explains: “The degree to which an apple browns depends upon that variety’s natural levels of polyphenoloxydase (PPL) and Vitamin C (ascorbic acid). The lower the level of PPL, the less the variety will brown. But Okanagan Specialty Fruits describes the process a bit differently: “Polyphenol oxidase (PPO) found in one part of the cell mixes with polyphenolics found in another part of the cell. (PPO is a plant enzyme. Polyphenolics are one of the many types of chemical substrate that serve various purposes, including supplying apples with their aroma and flavor.) When PPO and polyphenolics mix, brown-toned melanin is left behind,” they state on their website. When brown, an apple isn’t necessarily rotten, but Okanagan claim the benefits of non-browning apples go beyond the visual appeal and a reduction in waste. The company says stores or producers often use expensive chemicals to delay the browning of apples and many shoppers frown at the idea of chemicals or pesticides on their produce.

GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon Golden Delicious apples are among the Arctic's non-browning varieties. Getty Images Story highlights The USDA approved the GMO apples nearly two years ago Non-browning apples will only be available in Midwest stores for now, company says CNN — For a select few apple lovers in the US, a Golden Delicious slice will no longer turn brown as the first genetically modified apples are expected to go on sale early next month. A small amount of Arctic brand sliced and packaged Golden Delicious apples, produced by Okanagan Specialty Fruits in British Columbia, Canada, will hit the shelves of 10 stores in the Midwest in February and March, Neal Carter, the company’s founder and president, told the agricultural news website Capital Press. Arctic’s website lists the apples as being available early this year in some test markets. Carter said Midwestern stores were the first choice because they seemed like a good fit demographically and in size. He wouldn’t name the stores, stating it’s up to retailers to announce that they’ll be selling the non-browning apples. “We’re very optimistic with respect to this product because people love it at trade shows,” he said earlier this month. “It’s a great product and the eating quality is excellent.” Along with not turning brown, the apples should also becrispier in texture – possibly winning over some picky eaters. Nearly two years ago, the US Department of Agriculture approved the US’s first genetically modified apples. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service granted its approval based on “a final plant pest risk assessment that finds the GE (genetically engineered) apples are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk to agriculture and other plants in the United States … [and] deregulation is not likely to have a significant impact on the human environment,” as stated in their report. The Food and Drug Administration is not required to approve genetically engineered crops for consumption.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/09/17/161295119/if-gm-apples-dont-brown-how-can-you-tell-if-theyre-rotten

If Genetically Modified Apples Don't Brown, Can You Tell If They're ...

If Genetically Modified Apples Don't Brown, Can You Tell If They're Rotten? : The SaltGenetically modified apples that don't go brown could become the first transgenic apple varieties approved for sale in the U.S. Scientists say they're safe to eat, but the real question is, will consumers buy them? In the fairy-tale world, a shiny red apple can lead to a poisonous end. But some see two genetically engineered green apple varieties, poised to become the first to gain U.S. Department of Agriculture approval,as similar harbingers of doom. Okaganan Specialty Fruits Inc., the company that has developed Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties that don't go brown when you slice them, says the fears are overblown and the apples are safe to eat. Now, we've reported extensively on the heated debate over labeling genetically engineered food, and there's no denying that genetically modified (GM) foods are a polarizing issue. But would an apple that doesn't turn brown prevent us from telling whether it's rotten? The short answer is no. For the long answer, read on. The non-browning trait aims to please consumers who don't like brown apples or the off taste from the preservatives frequently used to maintain color and fresh appearance in packages of pre-sliced apples, says Neal Carter, Okanagan's president. "Ultimately, we just want people to eat more apples," he says. Carter also argues the innovation would help apple slice producers, who can lose up to half of their product from browning during production. Nevertheless, as the public comment period on a petition to approve these apples closed last month, many consumers worry — are they safe to eat? First, let's look at the physical properties of apples. No matter how you slice it, every apple turns brown eventually. "When their flesh is cut, the oxygen in the air interacts with chemicals in the flesh of the apple," says Susan Brown, a plant scientist at Cornell University. An enzyme called polyphenol oxidase, or PPO, makes melanin, an iron-containing compound that gives apple cells a brown tinge. The same type of "oxidative" browning happens in the browning of tea, coffee or mushrooms, explains Brown. Within five minutes of slicing, browning can alter the taste and might not be as aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't mean the apple is old or rotten. To prevent oxidative browning, the GM apples developed by Okanagan stop PPO production with a man-made gene containing pieces of four natural PPO genes. An insertion with gene fragments is an automatic red flag for the apple cell — usually the first step of viral attack — so it chops up every sequence of DNA that looks like the suspicious fragment, and the apple flesh stays light. "The beauty of this [process] is it's a natural plant defense mechanism," says Carter. Even when sliced, these apples stay clear of browning for about two weeks — that's roughly the same extended life span as apple slices from McDonald's and Burger King, which use lemon juice and calcium ascorbate to prevent browning. But if the apple doesn't go brown, then how do you tell if it's rotten? An apple with just oxidative browning isn't automatically rotten. Rotting comes from a fungal or bacterial infection, which causes the apple to go either mushy or dry. Infecting spores, not melanin, also give the flesh a dark brown hue. So, taking PPO out of the equation won't make a rotten apple appear pristine. "'Bad' apples will still be evident," says Brown. Rotting GM apples look rotten and turn brown from a bacterial or fungal infection the same as a conventional apple. But Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, notes that some studies in tomatoes have shown that silencing PPO has an impact on a plant's susceptibility to diseases and invasive insects because the enzyme may play a role in plant defense reactions. From nutrient value to taste, these apples are indistinguishable from a normal one, say Carter and Brown. If they do gain USDA approval, whether people will buy them is another story. "It's up to the consumer to decide," Brown says. As we've reported before, many of our processed foods that contain soy or corn are genetically modified, but fresh produce has been a tougher sell. Anybody remember the Flavr Savr tomato?

If Genetically Modified Apples Don't Brown, Can You Tell If They're Rotten? : The SaltGenetically modified apples that don't go brown could become the first transgenic apple varieties approved for sale in the U.S. Scientists say they're safe to eat, but the real question is, will consumers buy them? In the fairy-tale world, a shiny red apple can lead to a poisonous end. But some see two genetically engineered green apple varieties, poised to become the first to gain U.S. Department of Agriculture approval,as similar harbingers of doom. Okaganan Specialty Fruits Inc., the company that has developed Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties that don't go brown when you slice them, says the fears are overblown and the apples are safe to eat. Now, we've reported extensively on the heated debate over labeling genetically engineered food, and there's no denying that genetically modified (GM) foods are a polarizing issue. But would an apple that doesn't turn brown prevent us from telling whether it's rotten? The short answer is no. For the long answer, read on. The non-browning trait aims to please consumers who don't like brown apples or the off taste from the preservatives frequently used to maintain color and fresh appearance in packages of pre-sliced apples, says Neal Carter, Okanagan's president. "Ultimately, we just want people to eat more apples," he says. Carter also argues the innovation would help apple slice producers, who can lose up to half of their product from browning during production. Nevertheless, as the public comment period on a petition to approve these apples closed last month, many consumers worry — are they safe to eat? First, let's look at the physical properties of apples. No matter how you slice it, every apple turns brown eventually. "When their flesh is cut, the oxygen in the air interacts with chemicals in the flesh of the apple," says Susan Brown, a plant scientist at Cornell University.

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products/arctic-apple-events-gd743-gs784.html

Arctic Apple Events GD743 and GS784 - Canada.ca

Arctic Apple Events GD743 and GS784 In 2011, Health Canada received a submission to allow the sale of a "non-browning" genetically modified apple, called the Arctic apple. In order to determine whether the apple could be sold in Canada as food, the scientists at Health Canada conducted a scientific assessment that ensured the apple is safe for consumption, still has all its nutritional value and therefore does not differ from other apples available on the market. Our scientists also needed to assess how the apple was developed and whether it can be toxic or cause allergic reactions. Two varieties of Arctic apple were approved for growth and sale in Canada, the Arctic Golden Delicious and the Arctic Granny Smith. The science behind the Arctic apple is quite simple. A gene was introduced into the Arctic apple that results in a reduction in the levels of enzymes that make apples turn brown when sliced. In every other way, the Arctic apple tree and its fruit are identical to any other apple. Scientists with expertise in molecular biology, microbiology, toxicology, chemistry and nutrition conducted a thorough analysis of the data and the protocols provided by the applicant to ensure the validity of the results. Following this assessment, it was determined that the changes made to the apple did not pose a greater risk to human health than apples currently available on the Canadian market. In addition, Health Canada also concluded that the Arctic apple would have no impact on allergies, and that there are no differences in the nutritional value of the Arctic apple compared to other traditional apple varieties available for consumption. Health Canada's assessment of Arctic apple was conducted according to the Guidelines for Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. The approach taken by Health Canada in the safety assessment of GM foods is based upon scientific principles developed through expert international consultation over the last 20 years with agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The approach taken by Canada is currently applied by regulatory agencies around the world in countries such as the European Union, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, and the United States.

Arctic Apple Events GD743 and GS784 In 2011, Health Canada received a submission to allow the sale of a "non-browning" genetically modified apple, called the Arctic apple. In order to determine whether the apple could be sold in Canada as food, the scientists at Health Canada conducted a scientific assessment that ensured the apple is safe for consumption, still has all its nutritional value and therefore does not differ from other apples available on the market. Our scientists also needed to assess how the apple was developed and whether it can be toxic or cause allergic reactions. Two varieties of Arctic apple were approved for growth and sale in Canada, the Arctic Golden Delicious and the Arctic Granny Smith. The science behind the Arctic apple is quite simple. A gene was introduced into the Arctic apple that results in a reduction in the levels of enzymes that make apples turn brown when sliced. In every other way, the Arctic apple tree and its fruit are identical to any other apple. Scientists with expertise in molecular biology, microbiology, toxicology, chemistry and nutrition conducted a thorough analysis of the data and the protocols provided by the applicant to ensure the validity of the results. Following this assessment, it was determined that the changes made to the apple did not pose a greater risk to human health than apples currently available on the Canadian market. In addition, Health Canada also concluded that the Arctic apple would have no impact on allergies, and that there are no differences in the nutritional value of the Arctic apple compared to other traditional apple varieties available for consumption. Health Canada's assessment of Arctic apple was conducted according to the Guidelines for Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. The approach taken by Health Canada in the safety assessment of GM foods is based upon scientific principles developed through expert international consultation over the last 20 years with agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://www.grubstreet.com/2017/01/the-gmo-arctic-apple-will-hit-grocery-stores-this-february.html

The GMO Arctic Apple Will Hit Grocery Stores This February

The First GMO Apple Will Hit Grocery Stores This February ByChris Crowley, senior writer at Grub Street who covers the people who work and eat in New York City’s restaurants No ordinary apple. Photo: Courtesy of Okanagan Specialty Fruits Evidence shows that genetically modified crops are safe to eat, but many consumers remain skeptical about newfangled foods. One Canadian fruit company is nevertheless betting that convenience can convince consumers to give GMO fruit a bite. As early as February 1 in some midwestern grocery stores, Okanagan Specialty Fruits is expected to debut its Arctic Golden Apple, a Golden Delicious that has been genetically modified not to brown. Initially, the apples will be available at ten locations of several midwestern chains, though Okanagan has so far declined to disclose exactly which ones. Unlike crops that were genetically modified to purportedly protect them from pests or increase crop yields, the Arctic Apple has been marketed as more convenient — they don’t brown after they’ve been sliced. The apple was developed over the past 20 years by Okanagan under the guidance of founder Neal Carter, who has prevented browning by reducing the amount of the enzyme polyphenol oxidase. Unlike non-GMO apples, no chemical additives are used. Packaging also won’t declare the apples as GMO, information that will only be revealed by scanning a QR code. Along with the Golden Delicious apples, the USDA has approved Granny Smith and Fuji apples and, additionally, Arctic Gala apples could be approved in 2018. (The company could further apply the non-browning technology to other tree fruits like pears and cherries.) If the apples prove successful, it could be a breakthrough for GMO crops. Journalist and author of the forthcoming Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet, McKay Jenkins, tells the Washington Post “any successful product could lift the cloud over GMOs.” But the anti-GMO contingent aren’t thrilled with Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth telling the paper that the Arctic Apple is “understudied, unlabeled, and unnecessary.”

The First GMO Apple Will Hit Grocery Stores This February ByChris Crowley, senior writer at Grub Street who covers the people who work and eat in New York City’s restaurants No ordinary apple. Photo: Courtesy of Okanagan Specialty Fruits Evidence shows that genetically modified crops are safe to eat, but many consumers remain skeptical about newfangled foods. One Canadian fruit company is nevertheless betting that convenience can convince consumers to give GMO fruit a bite. As early as February 1 in some midwestern grocery stores, Okanagan Specialty Fruits is expected to debut its Arctic Golden Apple, a Golden Delicious that has been genetically modified not to brown. Initially, the apples will be available at ten locations of several midwestern chains, though Okanagan has so far declined to disclose exactly which ones. Unlike crops that were genetically modified to purportedly protect them from pests or increase crop yields, the Arctic Apple has been marketed as more convenient — they don’t brown after they’ve been sliced. The apple was developed over the past 20 years by Okanagan under the guidance of founder Neal Carter, who has prevented browning by reducing the amount of the enzyme polyphenol oxidase. Unlike non-GMO apples, no chemical additives are used. Packaging also won’t declare the apples as GMO, information that will only be revealed by scanning a QR code. Along with the Golden Delicious apples, the USDA has approved Granny Smith and Fuji apples and, additionally, Arctic Gala apples could be approved in 2018. (The company could further apply the non-browning technology to other tree fruits like pears and cherries.) If the apples prove successful, it could be a breakthrough for GMO crops. Journalist and author of the forthcoming Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet, McKay Jenkins, tells the Washington Post “any successful product could lift the cloud over GMOs.”

yes

Pomology

Are Golden Delicious apples genetically modified?

no_statement

"golden" delicious "apples" are not "genetically" "modified".. "genetically" "modified" "golden" delicious "apples" do not exist.

https://scienceline.org/2015/03/why-were-not-ready-for-gmo-labeling-yet/

Why we're not ready for GMO labeling — yet - Scienceline

If I had to pick, I’d honestly say that my favorite food is a crisp, tart Granny Smith apple. I eat them almost every day like most people drink a morning cup of coffee. I love the sound of the crunch when my teeth break the skin and the way the juice splashes my tongue. In February, the U.S. government agreed to let Okanagan Specialty Fruits start selling their genetically modified seeds for Granny Smith and Golden Delicious apples for commercial planting. The apples from these seeds, called Arctic apples, will have all the qualities we love about them, but will block an enzyme that normally turns apples brown when they’re sliced or bruised. It’s a small change, but one that is aimed to reduce the amount of food waste Americans generate. Right now, we throw away about 40 percent of perfectly good food. We probably won’t see these apples in grocery stores for a few years — they’re still undergoing voluntary safety tests with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — but already there’s concern about how the apples will be labeled. According to the New York Times, Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, plans to label them as Arctic or maybe non-browning, but not genetically modified because he doesn’t want to advertise the fruit in a negative light. Carter is right to be concerned: At the moment, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have a lot of bad press. According to a January 2015 poll by the Pew Research Foundation, only 37 percent of American adults believe GMOs are safe for consumption. That’s a 51 percent difference from the 88 percent of prominent scientists who stand behind them. Interestingly, according to The Washington Post, people who disapprove of GM foods are all over the political spectrum. Other scientific issues such as climate change tend to be polarized between Democrats and Republicans, but not this one — everybody seems to distrust GMOs. As a journalist, it’s hard for me to argue that anyone should be denied information, especially about when it’s about what they’re putting into their bodies. Even so, until the general public and expert opinions come into closer concordance, I’ve reluctantly concluded that we’re not ready to label all of our GMOs. I worry that at present it would cause paranoia about food safety based on a misunderstanding of the risk. Perhaps as scientists continue to study GMOs and more factual information gets out to the public, we could get to a place where GMO labeling is safely understood. But we’re not there yet, and if climate change denial has taught us anything, we might never get there. Technically, we’ve been eating GMOs for thousands of years, ever since farmers started selectively breeding crops to have certain traits. Now, though, modifying our crops has become more advanced: Scientists can alter genes with more precision in a lab. Since the 1990s we’ve been eating genetically modified crops like soy, canola and corn in more than half of our processed foods. In the controlled conditions of a genetics lab, unlike the in-the-field experiments of plant breeders, scientists can precisely manipulate genes that code for certain traits. They can either use a plant, animal or bacterium’s original set of genes, or they can take genes from a different organism and insert them where they are needed. Some crops are modified to be pest resistant or herbicide resistant, while others are altered to handle new kinds of climates. Some are fortified with extra vitamins. No matter what the outcome, the FDA mandates that GMO foods need the same safety standards as conventionally bred crops. FDA scientists with backgrounds in nutrition, toxicology, chemistry and genetic engineering work with GMO producers to answer questions about the nutritional values in the new crops, as well as any new material that may be in the food. Food cannot go to market until these scientists are satisfied they are safe. Could there be risks with GMOs? Yes. There’s always a chance that someone will have a food allergy to modified crops, or there could be some consequence that scientists haven’t foreseen. The European Union’s strict labeling policy on GMOs is based on this concern about unknown risks, often called the precautionary principle. But the foods we already eat every day have possible risks. Undercooked chicken could contain salmonella, yet we Americans eat 8 billion chickens a year — about 25 chickens per person. There are risks to all kinds of behavior. Every time you get in your car to go to work, there’s a 1 in 6,700 chance you’ll get into a fatal accident, and that’s just the known risk. There’s no way of predicting all the possible harm you could encounter in your day. Buying food that’s been deemed safe by the FDA is just the same: Testing, and a large number of experts, agree that it’s mostly safe, but there could always be risks. Consumers can already buy products with organic levels if they want to be assured they are at least 95 percent GMO-free and grown without synthetic pesticides or herbicides. Organic foods are typically more expensive than their inorganic or modified counterparts, but if some people want to spend a little more for their own peace of mind, that’s their choice. Personally, I don’t have the extra money to spend on all-organic food. But I don’t mind, because if the large majority of scientists feel GMOs are safe, I’m willing to bet on them, too. If we begin labeling GMOs, the fear those letters already ignite in most Americans may lead to panic about technology and risk that is simply not well understood. Until most Americans are better educated about the realities of GMOs, labeling them would just cause unnecessary stress, not clarity. Filed To Share About the Author Katherine Ellen Foley is a science writer and editor currently enrolled in New York University’s Science Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. Before moving to the Big Apple, she graduated magna cum laude from from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service with a B.S. in Science, Technology and International Affairs. During her time at Georgetown, she wrote pieces on science policy and explainers for Policy Mic and The Hoya. Now, she writes about a variety of topics, with an emphasis on life science and the environment. In her spare time, she enjoys long distance running, spicy Korean BBQ, and swing dancing. @katherineefoley Discussion 16 Comments Ninety percent of GMO crops are designed to be Roundup ready. What that means is farmers can spray Roundup weed killer DIRECTLY onto crops that will be turned into the food that you and your family eat. That’s right. These crops that are turned into food that finds its way to your dinner table, have been genetically modified so that they can be sprayed directly with Roundup poison and survive. The poison is absorbed internally into every cell of the plant. It is then harvested, processed into food, and you eat it. So in other words, you are eating the poisoned plants that have been designed to survive being poisoned. Think about that. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Roundup is made up of glyphosate and surfactants. One of the surfactants used Roundup are chemical compounds called siloxanes. Siloxanes are used in pharmaceutical drugs to penetrate the cell wall and get the drug into the cell more effectively. Glyphosate and siloxanes combine in Roundup to create a new molecule that is a hydrophobic substance. This new molecule is much more toxic to bacterial cells than Glyphosate alone and easily penetrates the bacterial cell wall. Prior to 2005, the formulation for agricultural grade Roundup produced was roughly 300 times more toxic than Glyphosate alone. In 2005 the surfactants were modified to include more powerful siloxanes, which created an even more toxic formulation than the previous permutation. After 2005 Roundup Weathermax Two is roughly one thousand times more toxic than Glyphosate alone. In addition to the newly added siloxanes, oxalic acid was added as an adjuvant to make roundup work faster. Oxalic Acid speeds the glyphosate into plant and allows it to penetrated very quickly, delivering the glyphosate deep into the tissue of the plant. This chemical concoction is designed to kill microbial inner structure of plants. It’s designed to kill microbes. And guess what? More than 90% of the cells in your body are not your own and THEY ARE MICROBES. They are friendly microbes that you are dependent on in order to stay alive. Without them, you die. These microbes that you depend on for your very life are the exact microbes that Roundup Weathermax Two was designed in a lab to kill. When you eat GMO food laced with trace amounts of this poison, it attacks those microbes. Roundup residue on the food you eat is literally killing the microbes within your body that you are dependent on for survival. What we as a society have the good fortune of having this toxic concoction of chemicals that is much more toxic than glyphosate alone being sprayed directly on to crops that we convert into food that we eat. There have been precisely zero studies done as to the toxicity of the entire Roundup formulation on mammals. ZERO. Tests have only been carried out on the primary ingredient glyphosate alone. And in addition to that, there have been precisely ZERO studies of the toxicity of this concoction to mammals when chronically exposed at low levels as most people in the United States are. If you live in the United States and consume GMO food on a daily basis, which most people do, you are ingesting trace amounts of Roundup Weathermax Two every single day. If you eat foods that contain wheat, corn, soy, canola, or sugar and they are not organic you are eating the toxic herbicide Roundup Weathermax Two. This is a fact. There has never been one single safety study carried about by anyone to determine if ingesting trace amounts of Roundup Weathermax Two every day for years is harmful to your health. These tests have never been done. NEVER. If you are eating GMO food, then you are the experiment. You are the lab rat who may get sick, may develop cancer, or may die from chronically ingesting this poison. The writer of this article seems to think that the public needs to believe GMOs are safe before they can be labeled, that just sounds so ridiculous to me. No one else should be able to decide for us what we should know or what we shouldn’t know about the food we pay for and feed to our families. It is just morally wrong. Also, comparing the risks of consuming GMOs to the risks of driving an automobile is like comparing apples to oranges. We know there are risks when driving a car, but how are people to know if they are they are taking risks by ingesting food derived from GMO crops when they aren’t even labeled? GMOs have been genetically engineered to withstand repeated applications of herbicide (roundup ready) or to produce it’s own pesticide. These poisons do not wash off and people are eating it everyday in many different food products! What about the cumulative effect? It’s no wonder our country has become so sick since GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996. Just label GMOs so everyone can have the freedom of an informed choice! Regarding GMOs, “…….88 percent of prominent scientists … stand behind them…” Where on earth did that absurd figure come from? How do you define “prominent scientists”? There is NO consensus on the safety of GMO crops and foods, because there have been NO long-term feeding /safety studies which demonstrate safety, and NO epidemiological studies of a human group fed with GMOs compared with a control group eating a GMO-free diet. When those studies are done and are on the record, let’s have a debate about the safety of GMOs. But until then, those who preach that GMOs are harmless are simply repeating uncritically a mantra invented by the GM industry in its own self-interest — and to their eternal shame, many scientists have gone along with this, partly on the basis of industry-funded studies carefully designed to prevent the appearance of chronic or long-term damage done by GMOs and the chemicals which go with them. GMO labelling is necessary NOW, in the public interest. One thing though, where you say, “Consumers can already buy products with organic levels if they want to be assured they are at least 95 percent GMO-free and grown without synthetic pesticides or herbicides,” this is not accurate. Yes, the USDA National Organic Program is SUPPOSED to ensure that organic products are 95% free of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. But there is currently no such threshold limit on GMO content. None. And thankfully so. Scientists may say it poses no harm to the human body. What about the ecosystem and millions of gallons of glyphosate dumped into it? It can be a big problem we face 20 years from now. We meddling a more well rounded approach. Scientists also said ddt was safe. The education needs to begin with you–the journalist. This article reads much like a Monsanto/FDA press release. It’s also pretty insulting to suggest Americans aren’t smart enough to determine whether they want their food altered en masse. Jon (and others) posting here make a good point. GMO foods are not the problem. The real problem is the reason the ag-industry wants GMO foods; which is, they want to spray chemicals in the fields that kill off everything but the intended cash crop, and so they NEED GMOs to make this plan successful. I agree, there’s nothing inherently wrong with GMO foods. But the other half of the equation is being ignored; why do they want to plant GMO foods? Wow, these comments here are only prove the whole point of the article. If anyone bothered to look into the science they would see that they are perfectly safe for human consumption and for the environment, instead of believing conspiracy bullshit that isn’t supported by even an ounce of legitimate science. i think nowadays nobody is so eager to trust the food that is in stores. talking about panic, i felt it already and it is not funny. the thought of picking your food from store to store, never mind eating a diet full in fruits and veggies, but now the question is where the plants are from, are they gmo, are they even ripe enough, makes life a little more complicated. i don’t think that the public really has a natural instinct not to trust FDA or the government, what i think is really scary is that we are getting more and more unhealthy as a nation and really nobody wants to point a finger to where all this comes from. people gain weight, we live our lives being overweight, we go to work with a back pain, our best friend according to the media should be painkillers, we have chronic back pain, kids have more and more allergies, things that we didn’t have in the past, people live longer but everyone is on meds after a certain age, cancer used to be the big c word and day by day, i don’t know if it is by repetition of the word, but honestly its not so scary anymore. I’ve got from the point of thinking of it as something “far and away” to something that i might have sometime in my future and its going to be fine because one in three people have it or something crazy like that. the idea of being healthy is overrated and is not even doable anymore. you get one person who is healthy in his/her sixties and that’s the anomaly. its not a normal world anymore. if things were getting better and we as a nation did have more energy, were in shape and expected wonderful old age, then we wouldn’t be looking so sad at the new gmos, but looking at how things turned out, makes me wonder, if we’re not wondering all the same thing,…when these things happen, who had our back? and if no one had our back, if this was truly a mistake, well all the additives and gmos is what we had, then why are we still persevering in discovering even more? why are we not looking at their effects on the long term? why are we not questioning their safety rather than continue in what we are doing, developing even more, we don’t even know how it affects us..? where will we end up? will all food end up being gmo in stores one day and we wont even have an option to buy organic? will these have been the good days in comparison to what will be? @Jon Mcneill — There are various ‘cut-and-paste’ versions of your comment on the Internet. Do you know where this material came from originally, or could you provide us with some credible scientific references for the claims you are making, so we can better understand your concerns? THX. It’s the same stance as an intelligence test for voting, and it just rubs people the wrong way. Intellects say that the general public is too ignorant to be able to decide correctly for themselves, so the solution is to take that choice away from them. While this may be true in some respects, it is a bad political move in trying to bring out a new product, by alienating and insulting your prospective customers. I generally understand that GMOs have not been proven unsafe.(which is not the same as saying they have been proven safe) And I’m aware that I’ve been eating them for years and will probably continue to do so. But I also understand concerns of those that feel otherwise, in varying degrees of genuine concern to completely fear driven. So I don’t have a problem with labeling. Just do it. What’s the establishment afraid of? A mass exodus from GMO to organics? Not enough supply. Price would skyrocket, and most people would shrug and say, eh, might as well just buy the stuff of the shelf that’s available that I’ve been buying for years. Many years later, with the acceptance of time, you can then remove the GMO labels. What’s so hard? It is unacceptable that those serving the public and media (this author) regard consumers and activists as uninformed or not intelligent enough to make these decisions. We have the right to know everything about the products we consume. In the mean time however, most GMO free products are labeled, and consumers for the most part can essentially “vote” with their dollars by avoiding non labeled foods, and purchasing GMO free / organic food already. If pesticides are a concern, GMO free doesn’t guarantee that, USDA Organic does limit exposure. More power to the LOCAL farmer who does not use GMOs or harmful pesticides. Why would we EVER say it’s OK to not properly label the ingredients that are in a product that WE will spend OUR money to buy??? Especially something we and our families will be ingesting?? Large corporations and money can spell evil at the expense of the general public…Monsanto ring a bell?? It’s stock is over $100 a share….. the writer is contradictory. first he says he cannot defend denying the right to information, and yet, he is doing precisely that for rather flimsy and unscientific reasons. No one has ever had to be in agreement about political ideas, religion, evolution, acupuncture, yoga, astrology, aspertame, flouride, msg, gluten, profanity, nudity, in order for the public to be informed of the presence of any of these in anything, or anywhere. As for paranoia, the public has always been made paranoid by the presence of terrorism, commies, the swine or bird flu, etc. so why is paranoia a good reason now for not labeling GMO? he sounds like a shill for the corporations.

If I had to pick, I’d honestly say that my favorite food is a crisp, tart Granny Smith apple. I eat them almost every day like most people drink a morning cup of coffee. I love the sound of the crunch when my teeth break the skin and the way the juice splashes my tongue. In February, the U.S. government agreed to let Okanagan Specialty Fruits start selling their genetically modified seeds for Granny Smith and Golden Delicious apples for commercial planting. The apples from these seeds, called Arctic apples, will have all the qualities we love about them, but will block an enzyme that normally turns apples brown when they’re sliced or bruised. It’s a small change, but one that is aimed to reduce the amount of food waste Americans generate. Right now, we throw away about 40 percent of perfectly good food. We probably won’t see these apples in grocery stores for a few years — they’re still undergoing voluntary safety tests with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — but already there’s concern about how the apples will be labeled. According to the New York Times, Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, plans to label them as Arctic or maybe non-browning, but not genetically modified because he doesn’t want to advertise the fruit in a negative light. Carter is right to be concerned: At the moment, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have a lot of bad press. According to a January 2015 poll by the Pew Research Foundation, only 37 percent of American adults believe GMOs are safe for consumption. That’s a 51 percent difference from the 88 percent of prominent scientists who stand behind them. Interestingly, according to The Washington Post, people who disapprove of GM foods are all over the political spectrum. Other scientific issues such as climate change tend to be polarized between Democrats and Republicans, but not this one — everybody seems to distrust GMOs. As a journalist, it’s hard for me to argue that anyone should be denied information, especially about when it’s about what they’re putting into their bodies.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/mormons

Mormons

Table of Contents Mormons are a religious group that embrace concepts of Christianity as well as revelations made by their founder, Joseph Smith. They primarily belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or LDS, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has more than 16 million members worldwide. Another Mormon denomination, the Community of Christ, is centered in Independence, Missouri, and has about 250,000 members. The religion was officially founded in 1830 when The Book of Mormon was published. Today, the LDS church is most prevalent in the United States, Latin America, Canada, Europe, the Philippines, Africa and parts of Oceania. While Mormons embrace many Christian beliefs, they have their own distinct set of philosophies, values and practices. Beliefs Mormons consider themselves Christians, but many Christians don’t recognize Mormonism as an official denomination. Mormons believe in the crucifixion, resurrection and divinity of Jesus Christ. Followers claim that God sent more prophets after Jesus’s death. They say that the original church has been restored in modern times. Mormons embrace four different texts: The Christian Bible, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. According to the LDS church, Adam and Eve lived in Daviess County, Missouri after being driven from the Garden of Eden. There are three levels of heaven—celestial, terrestrial and telestial—in Mormonism. Only those in the celestial kingdom will live in God’s presence. Followers don’t recognize the Christian concept of the trinity (God existing in three persons). Instead, they believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate gods. The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints considers Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism, a prophet. Family life, good deeds, respect for authority and missionary work are important values in Mormonism. Mormons practice clothing rituals that include wearing special undergarments that have religious significance. Known as the “temple garment,” the attire is worn by adult members who make sacred promises to God. Not all Mormon churches accept the label "Mormon," because the term has at times been used in a derogatory manner, and it does not allow for the variety of beliefs that exist among churches that follow the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Joseph Smith. HISTORY Vault: The Mormon Rebellion In 1857, when President Buchanan appointed a non-Mormon as governor of Utah, America faced its fiercest confrontation between church &amp; state: an armed confrontation between Mormons &amp; the U.S. government, murdering over 120 innocent people. Joseph Smith Joseph Smith Jr. was born in Vermont on December 23, 1805. When Smith was 14, he said he received a vision from God and Jesus that told him not to join any Christian denominational churches. Three years later, Smith claimed that an angel named Moroni appeared to him. Moroni revealed that Smith had been selected to translate the Book of Mormon, a sacred text that was written around the 4th century and named after Moroni’s father, Mormon. According to Moroni, this spiritual book contained information about the ancient people who inhabited the Americas. He revealed that the book was inscribed on golden plates near Palmyra, New York, which was close to where Smith lived at the time. Although the plates were first revealed to him on September 22, 1823, Smith said he was not allowed to retrieve them until September 1827. The Book of Mormon was translated and published in 1830. Smith also asserted that John the Baptist appeared to him while he was translating the Book of Mormon and instructed him to restore the church by preaching the true gospel. Joseph Smith Murdered After the Book of Mormon was published, Mormonism began to spread and grow rapidly. Smith set up Mormon communities in Missouri, Ohio and Illinois. Smith was criticized and persecuted by many for teaching his new ideas. In February 1844, Smith and his brother were jailed on charges of treason. On June 27, 1844, both Smith and his brother were murdered in jail by an anti-Mormon mob in Carthage, Illinois. Brigham Young After Smith died, the church divided. Many Mormons followed Brigham Young, who became Smith’s successor. Young led a large group of persecuted Mormons from Illinois to search for religious freedom. In 1847, Young and the other pioneers reached Utah’s Salt Lake Valley. Mormon Western Expansion During the 1850s, Young organized the migration of about 16,000 Mormons from Illinois to Utah. He founded Salt Lake City and became the first governor of the Utah Territory. Young was named the President of the Church and kept this title until his death in 1877. Scholars believe Young significantly influenced the religious and political landscape of the American West. Mountain Meadows Massacre Despite moving to a relatively isolated region in Utah, tensions between Mormons and other Americans continued. In September of 1857, a Mormon militia murdered about 120 people who were part of a wagon train from Arkansas. This event became known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The exact motive for the massacre is still debated today, and some records show that Mormon leaders attempted to cover up the attack. Scholars are also unsure who was directly responsible for the violence. Some have blamed Brigham Young, while others say the local leaders in southern Utah were at fault. Book of Mormon Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon confirms information found in the Holy Bible. The text gives an account of ancient prophets who lived in the Americas. It covers events that occurred from about 2500 B.C. to A.D. 400. According to the book, some Jews came to America to avoid persecution in Jerusalem. They divided into two groups who fought each other: the Nephites and the Lamanites. In A.D. 428, the Nephites were defeated. The text says that the Lamanites are the same group that’s known as the American Indians. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ appeared and preached to the Nephites in the Americas after his crucifixion. The book is divided into smaller books that read as narratives. The LDS church states that more than 150 million copies of the Book of Mormon have been distributed as of 2011. Mormon Church Today, the LDS church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. It’s run by a prophet who also serves as president of the church for life. The church’s hierarchy consists of: The first presidency (president and two counselors) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles The First Quorum of the Seventy Stake Presidency Ward Bishopric Individual members Children in the church are typically baptized at 8 years of age. A young man, 12 years of age or older, can enter into a priesthood known as Aaronic priesthood. Those over 18 can enter into Melchizedek priesthood. Mormon Polygamy Although the LDS church banned the practice of polygamy in 1890, Mormons historically wed many wives. In recent years, the church acknowledged that Joseph Smith wed as many as 40 wives, some as young as age 14. Today, Mormons frown upon polygamy and choose to marry just one spouse. Still, a small number of fundamentalists, who broke from the church, continue to practice plural marriage. Mormonism Today In recent years, Mormonism has crept its way into popular American culture. Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney brought the religion to the forefront of American politics in 2012. The well-known musical comedy, The Book of Mormon, has also brought attention to the religion, although it’s caused mixed reactions within the Mormon community. According to a 2023 Pew Research poll, a quarter of Americans say they hold very or somewhat unfavorable views of Mormons. A 2012 Pew poll found that said that 46 percent of Mormons feel they face a lot of discrimination. HISTORY.com works with a wide range of writers and editors to create accurate and informative content. All articles are regularly reviewed and updated by the HISTORY.com team. Articles with the “HISTORY.com Editors” byline have been written or edited by the HISTORY.com editors, including Amanda Onion, Missy Sullivan, Matt Mullen and Christian Zapata. Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

Table of Contents Mormons are a religious group that embrace concepts of Christianity as well as revelations made by their founder, Joseph Smith. They primarily belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or LDS, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has more than 16 million members worldwide. Another Mormon denomination, the Community of Christ, is centered in Independence, Missouri, and has about 250,000 members. The religion was officially founded in 1830 when The Book of Mormon was published. Today, the LDS church is most prevalent in the United States, Latin America, Canada, Europe, the Philippines, Africa and parts of Oceania. While Mormons embrace many Christian beliefs, they have their own distinct set of philosophies, values and practices. Beliefs Mormons consider themselves Christians, but many Christians don’t recognize Mormonism as an official denomination. Mormons believe in the crucifixion, resurrection and divinity of Jesus Christ. Followers claim that God sent more prophets after Jesus’s death. They say that the original church has been restored in modern times. Mormons embrace four different texts: The Christian Bible, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. According to the LDS church, Adam and Eve lived in Daviess County, Missouri after being driven from the Garden of Eden. There are three levels of heaven—celestial, terrestrial and telestial—in Mormonism. Only those in the celestial kingdom will live in God’s presence. Followers don’t recognize the Christian concept of the trinity (God existing in three persons). Instead, they believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate gods. The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints considers Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism, a prophet. Family life, good deeds, respect for authority and missionary work are important values in Mormonism. Mormons practice clothing rituals that include wearing special undergarments that have religious significance.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/christians?lang=eng

Are “Mormons” Christian?

Are “Mormons” Christian? Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians. They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. When asked what the Latter-day Saints believe, Joseph Smith put Christ at the center: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, ‘that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;’ and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.”1 The modern-day Quorum of the Twelve Apostles reaffirmed that testimony when they proclaimed, “Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. … His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come.”2 In recent decades, however, some have claimed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church. The most oft-used reasons are the following: Latter-day Saints do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post–New Testament Christianity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend through the historical line of traditional Christianity. That is, Latter-day Saints are not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. Latter-day Saints Do Not Accept the Creeds of Post–New Testament Christianity Scholars have long acknowledged that the view of God held by the earliest Christians changed dramatically over the course of centuries. Early Christian views of God were more personal, more anthropomorphic, and less abstract than those that emerged later from the creeds written over the next several hundred years. The key ideological shift that began in the second century A.D., after the loss of apostolic authority, resulted from a conceptual merger of Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy.3 Latter-day Saints believe the melding of early Christian theology with Greek philosophy was a grave error. Chief among the doctrines lost in this process was the nature of the Godhead. The true nature of God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. As a consequence, Latter-day Saints hold that God the Father is an embodied being, a belief consistent with the attributes ascribed to God by many early Christians.4 This Latter-day Saint belief differs from the post-New Testament creeds. Whatever the doctrinal differences that exist between the Latter-day Saints and members of other Christian religions, the roles Latter-day Saints ascribe to members of the Godhead largely correspond with the views of others in the Christian world. Latter-day Saints believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving, and they pray to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. In short, Latter-day Saints do not accept the post–New Testament creeds yet rely deeply on each member of the Godhead in their daily religious devotion and worship, as did the early Christians. Latter-day Saints Believe in a Restored Christianity Another premise used in arguing that Latter-day Saints are not Christians is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend from the traditional line of today’s Christian churches: Latter-day Saints are not Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. Latter-day Saints believe that by the ministering of angels to Joseph Smith priesthood authority to act in God’s name was returned or brought back to earth. This is the “restored,” not a “reformed,” church of Jesus Christ. The Latter-day Saint belief in a restored Christianity helps explain why so many Latter-day Saints, from the 1830s to the present, have converted from other Christian denominations. These converts did not, and do not, perceive themselves as leaving the Christian fold; they are simply grateful to learn about and become part of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, which they believe offers the fulness of the Lord’s gospel, a more complete and rich Christian church—spiritually, organizationally, and doctrinally. Members of creedal churches often mistakenly assume that all Christians have always agreed and must agree on a historically static, monolithic collection of beliefs. As many scholars have acknowledged, however, Christians have vigorously disagreed about virtually every issue of theology and practice through the centuries, leading to the creation of a multitude of Christian denominations.5 Although the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differs from that of the many creedal Christian churches, it is consistent with early Christianity. One who sincerely loves, worships, and follows Christ should be free to claim his or her understanding of the doctrine according to the dictates of his or her conscience without being branded as non-Christian. Latter-day Saints Believe in an Open Canon A third justification argued to label Latter-day Saints as non-Christian has to do with their belief in an open scriptural canon. For those making this argument, to be a Christian means to assent to the principle of sola scriptura, or the self-sufficiency of the Bible. But to claim that the Bible is the sole and final word of God—more specifically, the final written word of God—is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself. Nowhere does the Bible proclaim that all revelations from God would be gathered into a single volume to be forever closed and that no further scriptural revelation could be received.6 Moreover, not all Christian churches are certain that Christianity must be defined by commitment to a closed canon.7 In truth, the argument for exclusion by closed canon appears to be used selectively to exclude the Latter-day Saints from being called Christian. No branch of Christianity limits itself entirely to the biblical text in making doctrinal decisions and in applying biblical principles. Roman Catholics, for example, turn to church tradition and the magisterium (meaning teachers, including popes and councils) for answers. Protestants, particularly evangelicals, turn to linguists and scripture scholars for their answers, as well as to post–New Testament church councils and creeds. For many Christians, these councils and creeds are every bit as canonical as the Bible itself. To establish doctrine and to understand the biblical text, Latter-day Saints turn to living prophets and to additional books of scripture—the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Together with the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon supports an unequivocal testimony of Jesus Christ. One passage says that the Book of Mormon “shall establish the truth” of the Bible “and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.”8 In its more than six thousand verses, the Book of Mormon refers to Jesus Christ almost four thousand times and by over one hundred different names: “Jehovah,” “Immanuel,” “Holy Messiah,” “Lamb of God,” “Redeemer of Israel,” and so on.9 The Book of Mormon is indeed “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” as its title page proclaims. Conclusion Converts across the world continue to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in part because of its doctrinal and spiritual distinctiveness. That distinctiveness flows from the knowledge restored to this earth, together with the power of the Holy Ghost present in the Church because of restored priesthood authority, keys, ordinances, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fruits of the restored gospel are evident in the lives of its faithful members. While members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no desire to compromise the distinctiveness of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, they wish to work together with other Christians—and people of all faiths—to recognize and remedy many of the moral and family issues faced by society. The Christian conversation is richer for what the Latter-day Saints bring to the table. There is no good reason for Christian faiths to ostracize each other when there has never been more urgent need for unity in proclaiming the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission. This response attempted to answer the frequently asked query, “What are the fundamental principles of your religion?” Published in Elders’ Journal 1 (July 1838): 44, available at www.josephsmithpapers.org; republished with punctuation changes in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), 49. For evidence of this belief among early Christians, see David L. Paulsen, “Early Christian Belief in Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 2 (1990): 105–16. For the increasing complexity of creedal formulations over time, see J. Stevenson, ed., Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church, AD 337–461, rev. ed. (London: SPCK, 1989). The scholarly literature on debates over Christian theology and practice is vast. For early Christianity, see, for example, Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). For Christian theological debates in the early United States, see E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Many Christians understand Revelation 22:18–19 to mean that nothing can be added to the Bible. The warning in this scripture against adding “unto these things,” however, refers to the book of Revelation and not to the Bible as a whole. See Howard W. Hunter, “No Man Shall Add to or Take Away,” Ensign, May 1981, 64–65.

Conclusion Converts across the world continue to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in part because of its doctrinal and spiritual distinctiveness. That distinctiveness flows from the knowledge restored to this earth, together with the power of the Holy Ghost present in the Church because of restored priesthood authority, keys, ordinances, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fruits of the restored gospel are evident in the lives of its faithful members. While members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no desire to compromise the distinctiveness of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, they wish to work together with other Christians—and people of all faiths—to recognize and remedy many of the moral and family issues faced by society. The Christian conversation is richer for what the Latter-day Saints bring to the table. There is no good reason for Christian faiths to ostracize each other when there has never been more urgent need for unity in proclaiming the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission. This response attempted to answer the frequently asked query, “What are the fundamental principles of your religion?” Published in Elders’ Journal 1 (July 1838): 44, available at www.josephsmithpapers.org; republished with punctuation changes in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), 49. For evidence of this belief among early Christians, see David L. Paulsen, “Early Christian Belief in Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 2 (1990): 105–16.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/09/02/glenn-beck-christians-and-mormons/

Glenn Beck, Christians and Mormons | Pew Research Center

Glenn Beck, Christians and Mormons Fox News host Glenn Beck’s Aug. 28 rally — “Restoring Honor” — on the National Mall as well as his recent criticisms of President Obama have focused strongly on religion, and specifically Christianity. On an Aug. 24 broadcast, for example, Beck characterized Obama’s religious beliefs as “liberation theology,” which he called a “perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it.” But Beck has also acknowledged that many U.S. Christians may question whether his own denomination — the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons — is a Christian group. In an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” Beck said, “[L]ook, I’m Mormon, and most Christians don’t recognize me as a Christian….” It would be incorrect to state that “most” Christians do not view Mormonism as a Christian religion. A 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that a majority of Catholics (52%) say that Mormons are Christian; 29% say they are not. Among all Protestants, more say Mormonism is a Christian religion than say it is not by a 49%-to-34% margin. This includes 62% of white mainline Protestants who say Mormons are Christians. Of the major Christian groups, white evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say Mormonism is not a Christian religion: 45% say Mormons are not Christians, while 40% say they are Christians. While many Christians see Mormonism as a Christian religion, most Christians do not see their faith having much in common with Mormonism. Among all non-Mormon Americans who express a religious preference (most of whom are Christians themselves), fully 62% say that Mormonism and their own religion are “very different.” This opinion is held by 67% of white evangelical Protestants, 61% of white non-Hispanic Catholics and 56% of white mainline Protestants. For more details about public attitudes toward Mormons, see these reports and commentaries from the 2007 survey: About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Glenn Beck, Christians and Mormons Fox News host Glenn Beck’s Aug. 28 rally — “Restoring Honor” — on the National Mall as well as his recent criticisms of President Obama have focused strongly on religion, and specifically Christianity. On an Aug. 24 broadcast, for example, Beck characterized Obama’s religious beliefs as “liberation theology,” which he called a “perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it.” But Beck has also acknowledged that many U.S. Christians may question whether his own denomination — the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons — is a Christian group. In an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” Beck said, “[L]ook, I’m Mormon, and most Christians don’t recognize me as a Christian….” It would be incorrect to state that “most” Christians do not view Mormonism as a Christian religion. A 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that a majority of Catholics (52%) say that Mormons are Christian; 29% say they are not. Among all Protestants, more say Mormonism is a Christian religion than say it is not by a 49%-to-34% margin. This includes 62% of white mainline Protestants who say Mormons are Christians. Of the major Christian groups, white evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say Mormonism is not a Christian religion: 45% say Mormons are not Christians, while 40% say they are Christians. While many Christians see Mormonism as a Christian religion, most Christians do not see their faith having much in common with Mormonism. Among all non-Mormon Americans who express a religious preference (most of whom are Christians themselves), fully 62% say that Mormonism and their own religion are “very different.” This opinion is held by 67% of white evangelical Protestants, 61% of white non-Hispanic Catholics and 56% of white mainline Protestants.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://withallwisdom.org/2020/08/28/is-mormonism-just-another-christian-denomination/

Is Mormonism Just Another Christian Denomination? – With All ...

Is Mormonism Just Another Christian Denomination? Over the years as I’ve witnessed and talked to Mormons, I have always made it my goal in our conversation to demonstrate that Mormonism and Christianity are two entirely different religions. The reason I take this approach is because Mormons call themselves Christians, use Christian terms, and claim to be the restored (i.e., true) church of Jesus Christ. These claims are confusing, both to practicing Mormons and those with whom they converse. My goal is the same for this brief article. I want you to see clearly that Mormonism is not a branch or denomination of Christianity, but that it is something entirely different. I want you to see that Mormonism is, in the final analysis, a false religion that holds no resemblance to historic Christianity. Joseph Smith: The Founder of Mormonism In order to understand Mormonism, you must first understand their founder, Joseph Smith (1805-1844). Despite his status as a prophet of God in the Mormon Church and the high esteem to which contemporary Mormons ascribe to him, history yields a picture a this man far from flattering. Indeed, the historical record indicates that Smith was a polygamist, false prophet, and occultist. Personally, he was an exceedingly proud man who boasted much of his own insight into divine things and who eventually died in a blaze of gunfire as he sought to escape his captors by the use of lethal force. Mormons have sought to distance themselves from their founder’s checkered past and character while attempting to depict a man who was both devout and wise, and who endured persecution for the sake of righteousness and died as a martyr. The unfavorable facts remain, however, and the truth is that Mormonism’s founder fails on multiple levels as a trustworthy man or a prophet sent by God. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith remains central to Mormonism and Mormon teachers recognize Smith as the cornerstone of the religion. Former president of the LDS church, Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972) accurately conveys the weight that Smith carries in the Mormon Church when he commented: “Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed, and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.” Tragically, Smith has been shown over and over to fail at every category suggested by Joseph Fielding Smith. In the words of his namesake, Smith is one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. Mormon Doctrine: Far From Orthodox Christianity In terms of theology, the Mormon foundations are riddled with teachings that conflict with just about every historic Christian doctrine. For example, Mormonism teaches that God the Father not only had a beginning, but he is one of millions of gods that exist outside of our universe. Such notions collide with Scripture, which teaches that the God of the Bible is the one true God, and there is no other (Is 45:18, 22). Also, according to Mormonism, Jesus Christ is not the God-Man (John 1:1-14); he is the spirit-brother of Satan who was created by God. Salvation is not by grace alone through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9), but something given to us by God after we have done all that we can do. Actually, Mormonism teaches that all people are eventually “saved,” but only those who keep all of God’s commandments will be exalted into a celestial sphere where they will become gods. All of these notions are in direct contradiction to Scripture and historic Christian teaching. Mormon Scripture: Another Testimony of Jesus Christ? Although Mormons claim to believe the Bible, they actually harbor strong doubts about its reliability and look to other so-called revelations like The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants for doctrinal guidance. The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price were penned by Joseph Smith. Doctrines and Covenants contain Smith’s teachings as well as material from other LDS “prophets.” All three are considered inspired revelation from God. Problems abound for these texts, however. Doctrinally, much in these “revelations” directly conflict with biblical teaching. Beyond that, scholars have demonstrated that The Book of Mormon’s historical and scientific claims are unfounded and bereft of evidence. The origin of the Book of Mormon is sketchy as well. In 1823, Smith claimed to have been visited by the angel Moroni who directed him to a set of golden plates—buried on a hill near his New York home—that contained a historic record of America’s early inhabitants. Smith then translated these plates into a text that became the Book of Mormon. Although there were few men who claimed to have seen these plates, these claims do not appear reliable, and it is likely that no one was able to corroborate Smith’s story about the existence of the golden plates. While the Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price consists chiefly of historical claims, Doctrines and Covenants provide Mormons with foundational doctrinal instruction. Actually, much of what Mormons believe in terms of doctrine is not found in the The Book of Mormon but is rather contained in Doctrines and Covenants. In this text we find teachings that affirm that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, that “celestial marriage” is necessary if one desires to achieve personal godhood, and the formal recognition of Joseph Smith as a prophet and apostle, among other statements of doctrinal import. Even a brief survey of these texts exposes that their claim to latter-day revelation is easily disregarded. Compassionate Truth-Telling Many Mormons are unaware of what their religion teaches. The Mormon missionaries who come to your door every now and again have been well trained, but only in a few key areas of Mormon doctrine. Their knowledge of the Bible is often superficial—except for some important proof texts that allegedly support teaching found in their other “revelations”—and any acquaintance with Christian theology is only marginal. Their lack of knowledge of Christian teaching implies that engaging with Mormons should focus on positively presenting biblical truth to their minds and hearts. Knowledge of Mormonism is useful, but even more important is that you possess a solid grasp of Christian doctrine so that you are able to (1) discern their errant beliefs; and (2) accurately convey the truth of Scripture. None of the above is meant to promote a sense of superiority among Christians who know and love the truth. Of all people we know that our faith in Christ is a gift of pure grace (see 1 Cor 4:6). We are blind and helpless apart from God’s Spirit and Word, and we, just like all people, are dependent upon the sovereign intervention of God in order to see rightly (see 2 Cor 4:1-6). Nevertheless, when tested by God’s Word, we see that the errors of the Mormon church are as deadly as they are obvious. Those who embrace Mormon teaching reside under the wrath of God and desperately need Christians who are committed to compassionate truth-telling and evangelism to engage them in intentional conversation. Conclusion Perhaps this article has piqued your curiosity about the Mormon religion and you have a renewed desire to talk to Mormons with the hope of leading them to Christ. If so, I would encourage you to begin your evangelistic endeavors by first grounding yourself in the Christian faith. Make sure you know what Scripture teaches before you engage with Mormons. Next, educate yourself about Mormonism. Letters to a Mormon Elder by James White, Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes, and Kingdom of the Cultsby Walter Martin are all excellent resources that will help you understand Mormonism from a biblical perspective. The Mormon Mirageis a detailed and even-handed examination of Mormonism’s history and doctrine by former Mormon, Latayne C. Scott. Online, you can find many helpful articles here at The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, here at the Mormon Research Ministry, and here at the Utah Lighthouse Ministry. For some excellent on-the-street examples of how to witness to Mormons, check out Apologia Radio’s YouTube channel here. In all your efforts, pray diligently for God’s help, rely upon his Word for persuasion, and trust His Spirit for power. And the next time you hear a knock at your door, you will be ready to share the gospel with those two young Mormon missionaries who really need it. Derek Brown is the general editor for WithAllWisdom.org. He is also pastor-elder at Creekside Bible Church in Cupertino, California, and academic dean at The Cornerstone Bible College and Seminary in Vallejo, California. He lives with his wife and three children in the San Francisco Bay Area.

In this text we find teachings that affirm that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, that “celestial marriage” is necessary if one desires to achieve personal godhood, and the formal recognition of Joseph Smith as a prophet and apostle, among other statements of doctrinal import. Even a brief survey of these texts exposes that their claim to latter-day revelation is easily disregarded. Compassionate Truth-Telling Many Mormons are unaware of what their religion teaches. The Mormon missionaries who come to your door every now and again have been well trained, but only in a few key areas of Mormon doctrine. Their knowledge of the Bible is often superficial—except for some important proof texts that allegedly support teaching found in their other “revelations”—and any acquaintance with Christian theology is only marginal. Their lack of knowledge of Christian teaching implies that engaging with Mormons should focus on positively presenting biblical truth to their minds and hearts. Knowledge of Mormonism is useful, but even more important is that you possess a solid grasp of Christian doctrine so that you are able to (1) discern their errant beliefs; and (2) accurately convey the truth of Scripture. None of the above is meant to promote a sense of superiority among Christians who know and love the truth. Of all people we know that our faith in Christ is a gift of pure grace (see 1 Cor 4:6). We are blind and helpless apart from God’s Spirit and Word, and we, just like all people, are dependent upon the sovereign intervention of God in order to see rightly (see 2 Cor 4:1-6). Nevertheless, when tested by God’s Word, we see that the errors of the Mormon church are as deadly as they are obvious. Those who embrace Mormon teaching reside under the wrath of God and desperately need Christians who are committed to compassionate truth-telling and evangelism to engage them in intentional conversation.

no

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons-Christians.html

Are Mormons Christians? Are Mormons saved? | GotQuestions.org

Find Out Are Mormons Christians? Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity. In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from God’s Word, they are not. Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity (Articles of Faith, p. 182–185). Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, New York, 1861; and Mormonism Unveiled, Painesville, Ohio, 1834), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions. The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible (History of the Church 4:461, 8th Article of Faith). Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates. However, this same professor wrote a rebuttal letter soon after, saying that he never did any such thing and had, in fact, found the characters to be a hoax. In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism (see http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture). These facts alone are enough to cast much doubt on the veracity of the Book of Mormon. One of the many areas in which Mormons fall short of saving faith is their belief that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). This directly contradicts the Bible, which states that God has existed in His position as God of the universe from eternity past (Revelation 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Psalm 102:24–27). God was never a man (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9) and is the holy and powerful Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). Mormons also believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). However, no man can ever become like God (1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:21–22), despite what the serpent told Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5). Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547; Articles of Faith, p. 35; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372). It is essential to Christian faith that Jesus is one with God and that He is God’s only begotten Son who became flesh (John 1:1, 14; John 3:16). Only Jesus’ oneness with God would have allowed Him to live a sinless, blameless life (Hebrews 7:26). And only Jesus Christ was able to pay the price for our sins by His death on the cross (Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12). Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43; 2 Nephi 9:23–24; Alma 34:30–35; Articles of Faith, p.92). While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p 188; Mormon Doctrine, p. 670) and practicing good works (2 Nephi 25:23; Alma 11:37) in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6). Sadly, many in the Mormon Church are unaware of the religion’s shady past, amended scriptures, and even the full doctrine of their church. Many Mormons who have discovered these things have left the church and come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, we must treat Mormons with love and understand that they are among those deceived by Satan himself (1 Peter 5:8). Satan’s goal is to distort the truth, produce false assurance of salvation, and extend a deceptive hope of godhood (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Find Out Are Mormons Christians? Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity. In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from God’s Word, they are not. Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity (Articles of Faith, p. 182–185). Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, New York, 1861; and Mormonism Unveiled, Painesville, Ohio, 1834), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions. The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible (History of the Church 4:461, 8th Article of Faith). Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates.

no

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/are-mormons-considered-christians

Are Mormons truly Christians? | Verse By Verse Ministry International

Bible Answer Are Mormons truly Christians? Share Is the Mormon faith another form of Christianity? They teach they are the only truth, but how is that different from what you claim? Though Mormons are often very upright, conscientious and decent people (and though they portray themselves as Christians), nevertheless they are not Christian according to the word of God. The Mormon faith is a false religion preaching a false gospel that cannot save men. Mormons claim they are the only true Christian faith, having rediscovered the true Gospel previously lost. Groups that lay claim to "rediscovered" truth to the exclusion of all else are displaying cult-like tendencies (i.e., a desire to control the message for the faithful while limiting access to outside information to the contrary). Mormons follow this cult pattern in the way they teach their followers a false and distorted view of Christ and Christianity, which they maintain was rediscovered millennia after being "lost. Meanwhile, the Bible says the true gospel was delivered "once for all" to the saints (Jude 3), and no new revelation will be given (Heb 1:1-3). Nevertheless, the Mormons claim they obtained a new and better view of the Gospel through Joseph Smith, and in the tradition of cult thinking, they instill an "us against the world" mentality in their followers, which achieves its effect by innoculating their members to the real Gospel. In contrast to the Mormon cult, the true Christian faith never claims to have exclusive ownership of the Gospel. True Christians certainly profess belief in an exclusive truth, that is the truth of the Gospel found in the Bible, but Christians do not claim an exclusive ownership of this truth. Rather, we acknowledge God's truth is controlled by the Spirit and will never be lost according by the power of Christ to preserve His Church. No one group "owns" – much less restores – that truth. Genuine Christianity acknowledges that anyone who professes faith in Christ will be saved. The true believer need not belong to a particular group or denomination, for these earthly associations do not define truth nor salvation. Truth is a Person. and the message and power of Jesus is available to anyone through the word of God and always has been since Jesus delivered it (see Rom 10:16) Mormons, on the other hand, have created their own "gospel" (which is no gospel at all), and claim that all others are apostate. The Mormon gospel grossly distorts the truth., claiming that Jesus was merely a man who became a god through good works. They also maintain that all good Mormons can become gods (as Jesus did) through righteous works. Obviously, this is utterly false. If this story sounds familiar, it should, because this is a repetition of the same lie Satan told Eve in the garden (see Genesis 3:5). No wonder Mormons teach that salvation is only found through the Mormon church, because this lie is a scheme of the enemy to entrap humanity in a false gospel that cannot save. By contrast, the Bible says that salvation comes by faith alone in Christ alone (see Eph 2:8-9), and therefore a true Christian is defined by scripture as one who trusts in Christ alone (see Romans 10:16). This definition was given long before Jospeh Smith and the Mormons came along, therefore we must reject any attempt on their part to redefine salvation in another way. In the end, the Mormon religion is no different than any other man-made, false religion: it seeks to diminish the diety of Christ while elevating man to equality with God. In this teaching, we can clearly see Satan's fingerprints. Tthe Mormon church orginated from the visions of a convicted conman, Joseph Smith. In the early 1800s Smith claimed to have received the "restored faith" from an angel of light. This testimony reminds us of 2Cor 11:14, where Paul warns believers that Satan often comes disguised as an angel of light to deceive the unbeliever. This is Smith's own testimony. Simply put, Mormonism was delivered to an unbeliever by Satan, appearing as an angel of light, with the purpose to corrupt the minds of unbelievers. His fraud has succeeeded spectacularly, resulting in millions being deceived as a result.

Bible Answer Are Mormons truly Christians? Share Is the Mormon faith another form of Christianity? They teach they are the only truth, but how is that different from what you claim? Though Mormons are often very upright, conscientious and decent people (and though they portray themselves as Christians), nevertheless they are not Christian according to the word of God. The Mormon faith is a false religion preaching a false gospel that cannot save men. Mormons claim they are the only true Christian faith, having rediscovered the true Gospel previously lost. Groups that lay claim to "rediscovered" truth to the exclusion of all else are displaying cult-like tendencies (i.e., a desire to control the message for the faithful while limiting access to outside information to the contrary). Mormons follow this cult pattern in the way they teach their followers a false and distorted view of Christ and Christianity, which they maintain was rediscovered millennia after being "lost. Meanwhile, the Bible says the true gospel was delivered "once for all" to the saints (Jude 3), and no new revelation will be given (Heb 1:1-3). Nevertheless, the Mormons claim they obtained a new and better view of the Gospel through Joseph Smith, and in the tradition of cult thinking, they instill an "us against the world" mentality in their followers, which achieves its effect by innoculating their members to the real Gospel. In contrast to the Mormon cult, the true Christian faith never claims to have exclusive ownership of the Gospel. True Christians certainly profess belief in an exclusive truth, that is the truth of the Gospel found in the Bible, but Christians do not claim an exclusive ownership of this truth. Rather, we acknowledge God's truth is controlled by the Spirit and will never be lost according by the power of Christ to preserve His Church. No one group "owns" – much less restores – that truth. Genuine Christianity acknowledges that anyone who professes faith in Christ will be saved. The true believer need not belong to a particular group or denomination, for these earthly associations do not define truth nor salvation. Truth is a Person.

no

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/02/mormonism-obsessed-with-christ

Mormonism Obsessed with Christ by Stephen H. Webb | Articles ...

Mormonism Obsessed with Christ Mocking Mormonism is one of the last frontiers of verbal lawlessness to be untouched by the vigilante powers of political correctness. What other group is ridiculed equally by Christians and secularists—and not just any kind of Christian or secularist but the most fervent and hard core? Fervent Christians see in Mormonism a mirror distorting their own faith, reflecting an image strangely recognizable yet recognizably strange. Hard-core secularists think Mormonism is the best example of the strangeness and danger inherent in all religious belief. Deriding Mormonism pulls off the neat trick of making the devout and the godless feel as if they are on the same side. I too used to think of Mormonism as little more than an exotic and abnormal addition to Christianity. When I taught Mormon history to my students, I emphasized its remarkable spirit of endurance, its organizational savvy, and the sheer scope of its religious imagination. Yet I regret to say that I did not try to hide my condescension. I have come to repent of this view, and not just because I came to my senses about how wrong it is to be rude toward somebody else’s faith. I changed my mind because I came to realize just how deeply Christ-centered Mormonism is. Mormonism is more than Christianity, of course—most obviously by adding the Book of Mormon to the Bible—and that makes it much less than Christianity as well. Nevertheless, the fact that Mormonism adds to the traditional Christian story does not necessarily mean that it detracts from Christianity to the point of denying it altogether. After all, what gives Christianity its identity is its commitment to the divinity of Jesus Christ. And on that ground Mormons are more Christian than many mainstream Christians who do not take seriously the astounding claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Mormonism is obsessed with Christ, and everything that it teaches is meant to awaken, encourage, and expand faith in him. It adds to the plural but coherent portrait of Jesus that emerges from the four gospels in a way, I am convinced, that does not significantly damage or deface that portrait. I came to this conclusion when I read through the Book of Mormon for the first time. I already knew the basic outline: that it recounts the journey of a people God led from Jerusalem to the Americas six hundred years before the birth of Christ. In America, they split into two groups, the good guys (the Nephites) and the bad guys (the Lamanites), who battled each other until there were no good guys left—except for Moroni (Mormon’s son), who buried the chronicles of their wars and then, in 1823, told a farm boy from upstate New York where to find them. When I actually read this book, however, I was utterly surprised. I was not moved, mind you. The Book of Mormon has to be one of the most lackluster of all the great works of literature that have inspired enduring religious movements. Yet it is dull precisely because it is all about Jesus. There are many characters in this book, but they change as little as the plot. Nobody stands out but him. “And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25:26). And not just Jesus: A whole gospel in all of its theological details—right down to debates about baptism, the relationship of law to grace, and the problem of divine foreknowledge—is taught to the people of the New World centuries before Jesus was even born. Christians have long interpreted the Old Testament in terms of the New—reading Christ between the lines, so to speak—but Smith went one big step further. He replaced the figurative with the figure himself. The truth of Jesus is eternal, Smith thought, so it should not be surprising to learn that Christ was made known in times and places beyond our imagination. Long before his birth in Bethlehem, Jesus was eager to reveal the most specific details of his future life and ministry. Nephi, for example, who is said to have written the first two books of the Book of Mormon and to have been part of the migration from Jerusalem, already knew all about Jesus: “For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (2 Nephi 25:19). Likewise, a Nephite king named Benjamin declared around 124 b.c., “And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. And he shall be called Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 3:7-8). Every page of the book prepares the way for its stunning climax, which is a literal appearance of Jesus to the ancient peoples of America. For Joseph Smith, the ascension of Christ after the resurrection makes possible his descent into the Americas. Non-Mormons, of course, do not believe that Jesus visited the Americas, but why should they be troubled if Mormons tell stories about Jesus that seem far-fetched? Imagine the following scenario. Your family gathers at the funeral of your dearly beloved grandfather, a world traveler. Your relatives begin telling the familiar stories about his great adventures. Soon, however, you notice another group of mourners at the other end of the room. As you eavesdrop on them, you realize they are talking about your grandfather as if they knew him well, yet you have never heard some of the stories they are telling. These new stories are not insulting to his memory, though some ring more true than others. Indeed, this group seems to have as high an opinion of your grandfather as you do. What do you do? Do you invite them over to meet your family? That is a tough call. Many of your relatives will dispute the credibility of these stories, and some might make a scene. Others who think the stories are true will feel left out—why didn’t Grandfather tell us? The funny thing is, though, that this other group knows all of the stories your family likes to tell about the deceased, and the stories they add to the mix sound more like mythic embellishments of his character than outright lies. Clearly, the two groups have a lot to talk about! However you decide to handle the situation, there is no need for you to change your love for your grandfather. There is also no need for you to react to this other group’s love for your grandfather as if they are intentionally threatening or dishonest. Whether or not you decide to expand your family to include this group, you can still welcome them as promoters of your grandfather’s memory. And the more you love your grandfather, the more you will be drawn to discover for yourself whether these new stories make any sense. Of course, Jesus Christ is not your grandfather, and the stories we tell about him are grounded in Scripture, not family lore. Still, the Book of Mormon raises a question for Christians. Can you believe too much about Jesus? Can you go too far in conceiving his glory? Let me answer that question by posing another. Isn’t the whole point of affirming his divinity the idea that one can never say enough about him? And if Smith’s stories are not true, aren’t they more like exaggerations or embellishments than outright slander and deceit? I am not denying that the Mormon Jesus is different from the Jesus of traditional Christianity. Mormons connect the atonement more with the Garden of Gethsemane than with the cross, since they think that is where his greatest agony took place (Luke 22:44). The Book of Mormon places the birth of Jesus in Jerusalem, much to the delight of biblical fundamentalists who use such discrepancies to score debating points. The most significant difference is that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was never purely immaterial. Smith developed his materialistic interpretation of the spiritual realm mainly after the Book of Mormon, but it is anticipated in that book’s most extraordinary scene. In an appearance to the unnamed brother of Jared, Jesus is so sensitive to the overwhelming impression of his corporeal form that he reveals only his little finger. Jared’s brother says, “I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood” (Ether 3:8). Later Jesus shows Jared’s brother his whole body, which, it turns out, is a pre-mortal spirit body, comprised of a finer material substance than anything known on earth. Christianity has always affirmed the goodness of matter and the integrity of the human body, but Mormonism offers that Christian dogma gone mad. For Smith, Christ’s pre-existent form was as physically real as we are today. Christianity teaches that the incarnation happened in a particular place and time, but for Smith, taking Hebrews 13:8 (“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”) very literally, the Son has always been Jesus. The body of Jesus Christ is the eternal image of all bodies, spiritual and physical alike. The incarnation is a specification (or material intensification) of his body, not the first and only time that God and matter unite. The eternal embodiment of the divine is metaphysically audacious, and it explains why Mormonism is so inventive. Mormon metaphysics is Christian metaphysics minus Origen and Augustine—in other words, Christianity divorced from Plato. Mormons are so materialistic that they insist that the same unchanging laws govern both the natural and the supernatural. They also deny the virgin birth, since their materialism leads them to speculate that Jesus is literally begotten by the immortal Father rather than conceived by the Holy Spirit. By treating the spiritual as a dimension of the material, Smith overcomes every trace of dualism between this world and the next. Matter is perfectible because it is one of the perfections of the divine. Even heaven is merely another kind of galaxy, far away but not radically different from planet earth. For Mormons, our natural loyalties and loves have an eternal significance, which is why marriages will be preserved in heaven. Our bodies are literally temples of the divine, which is why Mormons wear sacred garments underneath regular clothing. This should not be taken lightly. The Mormon metaphysic calls for the revision of nearly every Christian belief. Still, not all heresies are equally perilous. If Gnosticism is the paradigmatic modern temptation—spiritualizing Jesus by turning him into a subjective experience—Mormonism runs in the exact opposite direction. If you had to choose between a Jesus whose body is eternal and a Jesus whose divinity is trivial (as in many modern theological portraits), I hope it would be an easy choice. Stephen H. Webb is professor of religion and philosophy at Wabash College.

Mormonism Obsessed with Christ Mocking Mormonism is one of the last frontiers of verbal lawlessness to be untouched by the vigilante powers of political correctness. What other group is ridiculed equally by Christians and secularists—and not just any kind of Christian or secularist but the most fervent and hard core? Fervent Christians see in Mormonism a mirror distorting their own faith, reflecting an image strangely recognizable yet recognizably strange. Hard-core secularists think Mormonism is the best example of the strangeness and danger inherent in all religious belief. Deriding Mormonism pulls off the neat trick of making the devout and the godless feel as if they are on the same side. I too used to think of Mormonism as little more than an exotic and abnormal addition to Christianity. When I taught Mormon history to my students, I emphasized its remarkable spirit of endurance, its organizational savvy, and the sheer scope of its religious imagination. Yet I regret to say that I did not try to hide my condescension. I have come to repent of this view, and not just because I came to my senses about how wrong it is to be rude toward somebody else’s faith. I changed my mind because I came to realize just how deeply Christ-centered Mormonism is. Mormonism is more than Christianity, of course—most obviously by adding the Book of Mormon to the Bible—and that makes it much less than Christianity as well. Nevertheless, the fact that Mormonism adds to the traditional Christian story does not necessarily mean that it detracts from Christianity to the point of denying it altogether. After all, what gives Christianity its identity is its commitment to the divinity of Jesus Christ. And on that ground Mormons are more Christian than many mainstream Christians who do not take seriously the astounding claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Mormonism is obsessed with Christ, and everything that it teaches is meant to awaken, encourage, and expand faith in him.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/beliefs/christian.shtml

Religions - Mormon: Are Mormons Christians? - BBC

On this page Page options Are Mormons Christians? We may be somewhat different from the traditional pattern of Christianity. But no one believes more literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more fundamentally that He was the Son of God, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He rose from the grave, and that He is the living resurrected Son of the living Father. President Gordon B. Hinckley In recent years the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has moved to emphasise that is distinctively Christian. In 2001 the church decided that in writings it should be called first by its full name - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - and then in later references called the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is certainly Christian to the extent that Christ is at the centre of its beliefs. Individual Mormons try to live their lives following the teaching and example of Christ. The Mormon view Mormons believe that conventional Christian churches have lost the authority of God. They believe that conventional Christian beliefs are a mixture of the truth and of errors that have been added over the centuries. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose on the third day. They believe that there would be no salvation without his atonement. They believe Christ will return to earth to reign and rule. The conventional Christian view Traditional Christian belief is contained in the creed as interpreted by the various denominations over the centuries. The teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differs from the creed in so many places that many traditional Christians say that Mormons are not Christians. Attitudes of other Christians Both the Vatican and the policy-making body of the United Methodist Church have decided that Mormons must be rebaptised when converting to Catholicism or Methodism. This shows that the Roman Catholic Church regards Mormonism as varying in its essential beliefs from traditional Christianity. It does allow members of most Protestant and Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism without being rebaptised. However Mormons require that everyone be baptised when they join their Church, no matter what background they come from. One difference in the two concepts of baptism is that the Roman Catholic church states that baptism remits original sin as well as personal sin, and that as Mormons do not accept the idea of original sin their idea of baptism is different. Mormons believe people are baptised for the remission of their own sins. BBC links This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.

On this page Page options Are Mormons Christians? We may be somewhat different from the traditional pattern of Christianity. But no one believes more literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more fundamentally that He was the Son of God, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He rose from the grave, and that He is the living resurrected Son of the living Father. President Gordon B. Hinckley In recent years the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has moved to emphasise that is distinctively Christian. In 2001 the church decided that in writings it should be called first by its full name - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - and then in later references called the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is certainly Christian to the extent that Christ is at the centre of its beliefs. Individual Mormons try to live their lives following the teaching and example of Christ. The Mormon view Mormons believe that conventional Christian churches have lost the authority of God. They believe that conventional Christian beliefs are a mixture of the truth and of errors that have been added over the centuries. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose on the third day. They believe that there would be no salvation without his atonement. They believe Christ will return to earth to reign and rule. The conventional Christian view Traditional Christian belief is contained in the creed as interpreted by the various denominations over the centuries. The teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differs from the creed in so many places that many traditional Christians say that Mormons are not Christians. Attitudes of other Christians Both the Vatican and the policy-making body of the United Methodist Church have decided that Mormons must be rebaptised when converting to Catholicism or Methodism. This shows that the Roman Catholic Church regards Mormonism as varying in its essential beliefs from traditional Christianity. It does allow members of most Protestant and Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism without being rebaptised.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/04/04/is-mormonism-more-plausible-than-other-forms-of-christianity/

Is Mormonism the least plausible form of Christianity? – Emerson ...

Growing up, I didn’t know much about the LDS Church. I heard it described as a “cult” during the 2012 presidential election. Even as a good protestant, I disagreed. After becoming an atheist a few years later, I still viewed Mormonism as a breakaway sect of Christianity, though I shared the following sentiment with Sam Harris: “Mormonism is objectively less credible than Christianity, because Mormons are committed to believing nearly all the implausible things that Christians believe plus many additional implausible things.” Christianity plus a lot of weird, implausible things. I think that’s an accurate summation of how many view Mormonism. But I’ve come to believe that it’s entirely mistaken. Due to their differences with other Christians regarding the nature of God, Latter-day Saints don’t defend the ontological argument. Their rejection of perfect being theism and their analysis of omnipotence (which effectively renders Mormon God less powerful than Catholic and Protestant God) opens up new avenues in responding to arguments from evil that are not available to other Christians. For me, this is a pretty big deal, since arguments from evil provide the best reasons for rejecting theism. Moreover, Latter-day Saints are on at least slightly better footing in making design arguments, since the designer they posit has a greater basis in experience relative to the supernatural, non-physical, maximally perfect designer posited by other Christians. Rather than forwarding creation ex nihilo, Mormons – along with many atheists – believe the universe is eternal. For Latter-day Saints, God is a part of nature rather than outside it. God organized our universe from pre-existing material. Consequently, Mormons do not defend the kalam cosmological argument. Strikingly, Mormons reject the notion of eternal conscious torment for non-Christians. Universalism (or something like it) is the default view in the LDS Church. This is not “Christianity plus implausible stuff” – this is Christianity minus implausible stuff. Unless, that is, you consider eternal conscious torment, creation ex nihilo, and the baffling notion that our world was created by a perfect being to be valuable aspects of Christianity that somehow increase its plausibility. Of course, Harris is correct in saying that Theory A is objectively more plausible than Theory B if Theory B is just Theory A + a few additional implausible claims. He’s wrong, however, in thinking that this maps on to Christianity and Mormonism in the way he presents it. If anything, he has it backwards. Many of the shortcomings of the LDS worldview are shortcoming of all forms of Christianity. For example, a literalist approach to the holy text will yield numerous conflicts with history and science. (Many theists seem to think this is a unique problem for Mormonism.) This is an important point if we’re playing this game of “Which version of Christianity is the most plausible?” In nearly every case, Mormonism is either on equal(ish) footing with other forms of Christianity – and therefore no less plausible – or it has an advantage over its Christian rivals.

Growing up, I didn’t know much about the LDS Church. I heard it described as a “cult” during the 2012 presidential election. Even as a good protestant, I disagreed. After becoming an atheist a few years later, I still viewed Mormonism as a breakaway sect of Christianity, though I shared the following sentiment with Sam Harris: “Mormonism is objectively less credible than Christianity, because Mormons are committed to believing nearly all the implausible things that Christians believe plus many additional implausible things.” Christianity plus a lot of weird, implausible things. I think that’s an accurate summation of how many view Mormonism. But I’ve come to believe that it’s entirely mistaken. Due to their differences with other Christians regarding the nature of God, Latter-day Saints don’t defend the ontological argument. Their rejection of perfect being theism and their analysis of omnipotence (which effectively renders Mormon God less powerful than Catholic and Protestant God) opens up new avenues in responding to arguments from evil that are not available to other Christians. For me, this is a pretty big deal, since arguments from evil provide the best reasons for rejecting theism. Moreover, Latter-day Saints are on at least slightly better footing in making design arguments, since the designer they posit has a greater basis in experience relative to the supernatural, non-physical, maximally perfect designer posited by other Christians. Rather than forwarding creation ex nihilo, Mormons – along with many atheists – believe the universe is eternal. For Latter-day Saints, God is a part of nature rather than outside it. God organized our universe from pre-existing material. Consequently, Mormons do not defend the kalam cosmological argument. Strikingly, Mormons reject the notion of eternal conscious torment for non-Christians. Universalism (or something like it) is the default view in the LDS Church. This is not “Christianity plus implausible stuff” – this is Christianity minus implausible stuff.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/comparison-chart-mormonism-and-christianity/

Comparison Chart - Mormonism and Christianity - Apologetics

Comparison Chart — Mormonism and Christianity The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon church) professes to be a Christian church. However, a careful comparison of basic doctrinal positions of that church to those of historical, biblical Christianity reveal many radical differences. This pamphlet compares Mormon doctrines as stated in LDS authoritative primary sources to those of historic Christianity as derived solely from the Bible. The Doctrine of God: Historic Christianity Mormonism The one God is a Spirit who is the personal, eternal, infinite Creator of all that exists. He is the only God and necessary for all other things to exist. He exists eternally as a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (see Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; John 4:24; 17:3) God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man with a physical body of flesh and bone. LDS founder Joseph Smith said, “If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). The trinity is denied with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost seen as three separate entities. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 130:22). The Doctrine of Jesus Christ: Historic Christianity Mormonism Jesus Christ was the virgin born God incarnate who existed in all time with the Father and Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity. As a man He possessed two natures -human and divine. He lived a sinless life and willingly died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sin of all humanity. (see John 1:1-18; 8:56-59; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:13-22; Heb.1:3; 13:8) Jesus was the spiritual “first born” Son of God in the preexistence. “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ, so he is literally our elder brother” (Gospel Principles [GP], p. 11).”And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21). He is also the “only begotten” physical offspring of God by procreation on earth. “Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son” (GP, p. 64). His atonement (death and resurrection) provides immortality for all people regardless of their faith. “Christ thus overcame physical death. Because of his atonement, everyone born on this earth will be resurrected . . . This condition is called immortality. All people who ever lived will be resurrected, ‘both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous’ (The Book of Mormon [BOM], Alma 11:44)” (GP, p. 74). (See GP, pp. 11, 17-19, 61-77.) The Doctrine of Scriptures and Authority: Historic Christianity Mormonism The Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the unique, revealed, and inspired Word of God. It is the sole authority for faith and practice for Christians. (see 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21) Recognizes the LDS Four Standard Works as authoritative. These include the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith 1:8). It also includes The Book of Mormon (BOM) which Joseph Smith declared is “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 194). The church also regards The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) as Scripture. It “is a collection of modern revelations . . . regarding The Church of Jesus Christ as it has been restored in these last days” (GP, p. 54). The Pearl of the Great Price (PGP) is the fourth book believed to be inspired. “It clarifies doctrines and teachings that were lost from the Bible and gives added information concerning the creation of the earth” (GP, p. 54). The church’s president is regarded as “a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet” (D&C 107:91-92). The Doctrine of Humanity: Historic Christianity Mormonism Human beings are created in God’s image, meaning they have personal qualities similar to God’s. Every person is a unique, precious being of dignity and worth. (see Gen. 1:26-27) People are the preexisted spiritual offspring of the Heavenly Father and Mother. “All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal (physical) body” (Joseph F. Smith, “The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78,80, as quoted in GP, p. 11).They are born basically good and are “gods in embryo.” A commonly quoted Mormon aphorism (attributed to fifth LDS president Lorenzo Snow) says “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” The Doctrine of Sin: Historic Christianity Mormonism Human beings have chosen to sin against God, rejecting His nature and pursing life opposed to His essential character and revealed law. (see Rom. 3:23; 7:14-25; 1 John 1:8-10) People sin by disobedience to God’s laws. Adam’s fall, a part of Heavenly Father’s plan, caused a loss of immortality, which was necessary for mankind to advance, (see GP, pp. 31-34). As Eve declared according to LDS scripture, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have . . . known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient”(PGP, Moses 5:11; see also BOM, 2 Nephi 2:22-25). Each person is responsible for his or her own sin. The Doctrine of Salvation: Historic Christianity Mormonism Salvation is release from the guilt and power of sin through God’s gift of grace. It is provided through Christ’s atonement and received by personal faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. (see Rom. 3:20; 10:9- 10; Eph. 2:8-10) Jesus’ atonement provided immortality for all people. Exaltation (godhood) is available only to Mormons through obedience to LDS teachings: faith, baptism, endowments, celestial marriage, and tithing. “Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God-Wherefore, all things are theirs” (D&C, 76:58-59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people: 1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C, 76). 2. They will become gods. 3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family. 4. They will receive a fullness of joy. 5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have – all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (See GP, p. 302). Baptism for the dead provides post-mortem salvation for non-Mormons, and is “by immersion performed by a living person for one who is dead. This ordinance is performed in temples” (GP, p. 375). (See also GP, chapters 18-23.) The Doctrine of Life after Death: Historic Christianity Mormonism Eternal life in heaven with God for those who have trusted in Jesus Christ. Eternal separation from God’s presence in hell for the unsaved. (see Matt. 5:12-30; 25:41; Rev. 20-22) One of three levels of glory: 1. Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for faithful Mormons where people may become gods or angels; “Then shall they be gods” (D&C 132:20). 2. Terrestrial Kingdom for righteous non-Mormons; “These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fullness” (D&C 76:75-76). 3. Telestial Kingdom for wicked and ungodly (not hell); “These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers . . . who suffer the wrath of God on earth”(D&C 76:103-104). (See also D&C 76:57-119; 131:1-4.) The Doctrine of the Church: Historic Christianity Mormonism Christians congregate together in local bodies and along denominational lines sharing distinctive doctrinal and ecclesiastical concepts. There is no organization or denomination that can claim exclusive designation as the “one true church. The universal church consists of all the redeemed in Jesus Christ in all of the ages. (see Matt. 16:15-19; 1 Cor. 1:12-14; Eph. 2:19; 3:11-12) Asserts that the LDS is the one true church on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith claimed Jesus Christ told him to join none of the existing denominations because “they were all wrong . . . that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (PGP: Joseph Smith-History 1:19-20). Mormons claim only the LDS possesses the divine authority of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood as restored by God to Joseph Smith in 1829. (D&C 13; 27:8- 13; 107:1-20; PGP: Joseph Smith-History 1:68-73)

Comparison Chart — Mormonism and Christianity The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon church) professes to be a Christian church. However, a careful comparison of basic doctrinal positions of that church to those of historical, biblical Christianity reveal many radical differences. This pamphlet compares Mormon doctrines as stated in LDS authoritative primary sources to those of historic Christianity as derived solely from the Bible. The Doctrine of God: Historic Christianity Mormonism The one God is a Spirit who is the personal, eternal, infinite Creator of all that exists. He is the only God and necessary for all other things to exist. He exists eternally as a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (see Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; John 4:24; 17:3) God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man with a physical body of flesh and bone. LDS founder Joseph Smith said, “If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). The trinity is denied with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost seen as three separate entities. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 130:22). The Doctrine of Jesus Christ: Historic Christianity Mormonism Jesus Christ was the virgin born God incarnate who existed in all time with the Father and Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity. As a man He possessed two natures -human and divine.

no

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

yes_statement

"mormons" are christians. mormonism is a form of christianity

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/29/us/mormon-beliefs-explained-cec/index.html

What do Mormons believe? | CNN

What do Mormons believe? A view of the Salt Lake Temple, a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Rick Bowmer/AP CNN — Mormonism is a religion practiced by millions around the world. And yet, many who are unfamiliar with it sometimes rely on vague stereotypes and pop culture references to define it. In reality, it’s a theologically complex religion with an unusual history. Here, we answer some of the most common questions about Mormonism, with context from religious experts and Mormon literature. What do Mormons believe? Mormons believe in a Christian view of God and Jesus. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are the two most important sources for the Mormon faith. The Book of Mormon is described by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as “a collection of writings from ancient Christians who traveled from Jerusalem to the Americas during biblical times,” transcribedby the church’s founder Joseph Smith, who is considered by believers to be a prophet. This marks one of the biggest differences between Mormonism and other Christian religions. 17,002,461 Are Mormons Christians? Several other details of Mormon history and belief also diverge from most Christian understandings. (These are described below in the section “What does the Book of Mormon say?”) A view of the 189th annual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 2019 in Salt Lake City. George Frey/Getty Images Mormonism does define itself as a type of Christianity. However, the answer isn’t that simple. “Here’s the problem. Who decides what Christianity is?” says Matthew Bowman, associate professor of religion and history and Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California. “Mormons reject trinitarianism – the idea that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same entity. This is a central tenet of mainline Christianity that was decided in early Christian councils. So to a lot of Christians, believers in Mormonism are not Christian. It is an internal debate.” However, trinitarian beliefs can vary among Mormon denominations. While the LDS Church, the largest denomination of Mormonism, states a belief that “God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance,” the Community of Christ, a smaller denomination, defines the trinity as “God who is a community of three persons,” a view that more aligns with other Christian traditions. What’s the difference between Mormonism and Latter-day Saints? The name “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” comes from a verse in the Book of Mormon, in which God reportedly said “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination, have requested people stop referring to church members as “Mormons.” However, Bowman says there is a distinct relationship between the two. “Mormonism is a religious tradition with a number of denominations within it, but to equate the two erases these multiple other groups,” Bowman says. “There are three fairly large Mormon churches: The LDS based in Salt Lake City, the Fundamentalist Church of (Jesus Christ of) Latter-day Saints, which is the group associated with polygamy, and the Community of Christ. They are the Mormons who did not go west and settle in Utah, and they are quite different theologically.” So, logically, all followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are technically Mormons. But not all Mormons are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How did Mormonism begin? Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism. Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG/Getty Images The origins of Mormonism set it apart from other Christian traditions. The religion was founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820s in Palmira, a small town in upstate New York. Mormons believe Smith, confused about what denomination of Christianity to follow, received a vision from an angel named Moroni, who led Smith to a box containing a book inscribed on gold plates. The book was said to be written by ancient prophets who lived in the Americas, and Moroni asked Smith to translate the ancient text into English. In the introduction to the Book of Mormon, Smith describes the text as “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” It was first published in English in 1830. In these formative years, Smith and some close associates also claimed to have been visited by other important biblical figures like John the Baptist and three apostles of Jesus, according to the LDS Church website. With this small group, Smith formed the first Mormon church. What does the Book of Mormon say? The Book of Mormon assumes an alternative history to other Christian texts. Most notably, the text claims a strong presence of ancient Christianity and pre-Christianity in what is now the United States. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus appeared in the Americas after his crucifixion in 33 AD and preached to a group of Nephites, descendants of ancient Israeliteswho traveled to the continent around 600 BC. One of these Nephites was the prophet Mormon, who would eventually write part of the Book of Mormon, later transcribed by Joseph Smith. Due to this assumed Christian heritage in the Americas, Joseph Smith believed Native Americans were also descendants of ancient Israelites. “Smith and his early followers had a belief that Native Americans should be honored,” says Bowman. “But then there was frustration when, as Mormonism moved west, Native Americans were not receptive to that.” How did Mormonism come to be associated with Salt Lake City? Brigham Young, one of the Mormon founders who oversaw the mass settlement of Mormons in Salt Lake City. Hulton Deutsch/Corbis/Getty Images Though the Mormon religion began in New York, it quickly spread west, through Ohio and Illinois and later to the contested frontier of Utah. Missionaries, who immediately became an important part of the church, were one reason for the expansion. The other was that Smith, with his visions and controversial ideas, became increasingly unpopular outside his Mormon community and chose to relocate several times. “Smith claimed that since Abraham and Isaac and Joseph and all of these Biblical patriarchs are polygamists, that’s the biblical order of things,” says Bowman. “At the very least, he knew that people wouldn’t like this, and so he starts doing it secretly and ends up marrying somewhere between 30 and 35 women.” In 1844, Smith and his brother Hyrum were arrested in Illinois and charged with treason after attempting to quash public discussion of polygamy and using a local militia. (Smith had also announced his intention to run for president of the United States earlier in the year, attracting even more attention.) A mob broke into the prison and killed the brothers before they could be tried. After Smith’s death, the church was taken over by Brigham Young, who continued the push westward. “(Young) was very convinced that (Mormons) were going to have the flee the US,” says Bowman. “He consulted with a lot of explorers and mapmakers, and decided on the Salt Lake Valley. At the time, it was still part of Mexico because of the Mexican-American war. There were Indigenous people there, but no Mexican or American citizens.” By 1877, a majority of Mormons in the US settled in the Salt Lake Valley. Groups that split off further east became what are now Mormon denominations outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why is very little known about Mormon customs? “This goes back to Joseph Smith and the early church,” says Bowman. “In his ideal church, everyone would live in the same city, all the property would be owned by the church and everyone would get what they needed from the church.” Bowman says Brigham Young strove to continue this tradition when the church settled in Salt Lake City, encouraging followers to interact only with Mormon-led groups and businesses. Today, a lot of Mormon church life remains a mystery to outsiders, and that is by design. “What goes on inside their temples, which are their main places of worship, is considered sacred, and you don’t talk about it in public,” Bowman says. Is missionary work a big part of Mormonism? A pair of Mormon missionaries set off on foot in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, in 2018. John Enger/Minnesota Public Radio/AP “Missionary work has been part of the church since the very beginning,” says Bowman, noting that missionary work is part of what initially led the early Mormon church to expand. “In Mormonism, the leadership of the church will extend a call for you to go on a mission. That is what distinguishes it from other Christian churches. There, it is personal and voluntary. And while it is not technically required in the Mormon church, it’s still a cultural expectation.” According to the LDS Church, there are about 53,000 full-time missionaries around the world, in more than 400 locations. These missionaries are typically young men, who undertake missionary duties for two years, and young women, who undertake missionary duties for 18 months. The countries with the largest number of LDS-aligned Mormons, after the US, are Mexico, Brazil and the Philippines, according to LDS statistics. “The Church does not authorize and sternly prohibits polygamy today,” reads an LDS Church explanation of the subject. “As early as 1890, the practice of polygamy came to an end when Church President Wilford Woodruff was inspired by God to issue a declaration.” What is Mormonism’s view on social issues? A copy of the Book of Mormon, which along with the Bible, is the most important text in the Mormon faith. Wong Maye-E/AP Public perception of Mormonism often focuses on the social and cultural values of its followers. It is true that Mormonism teaches the abstinence of things like alcohol, coffee and premarital sex.It is also true that the LDS Church does not fully affirm LGBTQ believers or recognize same sex marriage. The LDS Church’s official policies describe their stance on homosexuality: “If members feel same-sex attraction and are striving to live the law of chastity, leaders support and encourage them in their resolve. These members may receive Church callings, have temple recommends, and receive temple ordinances if they are worthy. Male Church members may receive and exercise the priesthood.” “Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.” Mormonism has also been heavily criticized for its history of racial prejudice. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young advanced a theological idea that Black people bore the “curse of Cain,” relating them to the Old Testament story of the covetous, murderous brother. “The Pearl of Great Price,” an important collection of Mormon teachings written by Smith, repeatedly describes the descendants of Cain as having dark skin. An entry in the chapter of Moses reads: “And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” Smith, Young and subsequent leaders of the Mormon church repeatedly made disparaging and racist comments about Black people that sometimes also served as commentary on justice movements like abolitionism. “Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin,” Young wrote in 1859. “Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants;’ and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” Because of these racist beliefs, Black men were barred from LDS church priesthood from the 1850s until 1978. Since the disavowal of its founders’ views on race, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has occasionally made statements condemning racism. Its church policies also clarify this stance. “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else,” a current LDS-issued manual reads. “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

What do Mormons believe? A view of the Salt Lake Temple, a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Rick Bowmer/AP CNN — Mormonism is a religion practiced by millions around the world. And yet, many who are unfamiliar with it sometimes rely on vague stereotypes and pop culture references to define it. In reality, it’s a theologically complex religion with an unusual history. Here, we answer some of the most common questions about Mormonism, with context from religious experts and Mormon literature. What do Mormons believe? Mormons believe in a Christian view of God and Jesus. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are the two most important sources for the Mormon faith. The Book of Mormon is described by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as “a collection of writings from ancient Christians who traveled from Jerusalem to the Americas during biblical times,” transcribedby the church’s founder Joseph Smith, who is considered by believers to be a prophet. This marks one of the biggest differences between Mormonism and other Christian religions. 17,002,461 Are Mormons Christians? Several other details of Mormon history and belief also diverge from most Christian understandings. (These are described below in the section “What does the Book of Mormon say?”) A view of the 189th annual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 2019 in Salt Lake City. George Frey/Getty Images Mormonism does define itself as a type of Christianity. However, the answer isn’t that simple. “Here’s the problem. Who decides what Christianity is?” says Matthew Bowman, associate professor of religion and history and Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California. “Mormons reject trinitarianism – the idea that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same entity. This is a central tenet of mainline Christianity that was decided in early Christian councils.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

no_statement

"mormons" are not christians. mormonism is not considered a part of christianity

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2007/09/25/section-2-views-of-mormons-and-mormonism/

Section 2: Views of Mormons and Mormonism | Pew Research Center

Section 2: Views of Mormons and Mormonism Overall, a slim majority of the public (53%) expresses a favorable view of Mormons, while 27% view Mormons unfavorably. Among religious groups, solid majorities of white mainline Protestants (62%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (59%) express favorable opinions of Mormons. But among white evangelical Protestants, just 46% have a positive impression of Mormons, while 39% have an unfavorable opinion. There also are substantial educational differences in opinions about Mormons: 64% of college graduates express favorable opinions of Mormons, as do 56% of those with some college experience. But fewer than half of those with a high school education or less (45%) have a positive impression of Mormons. About three-in-ten (31%) of those who express favorable opinions of Mormons cite personal experience as the biggest influence on their opinions, but a fairly large proportion of those with negative opinions of Mormons (23%) also point to their personal experiences as being most influential. A slim majority of the public (52%) says that Mormonism is a Christian religion, while nearly one-in-three (31%) say that Mormonism is not a Christian religion. White evangelicals stand out for their view that the Mormon religion is not Christian: a 45% plurality says that Mormonism is not Christian, while 40% say it is. Among white evangelicals who attend services at least weekly, 52% believe that the Mormon religion is not Christian. By contrast, large majorities of white mainline Protestants (62%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (59%) say that Mormons are Christians. In addition, those with no formal religious affiliation also say that the Mormon religion is Christian by a wide margin (59%-25%). Even though a slim majority of the public views Mormonism as a Christian religion, most Americans say it is very different from their own religion. Among non-Mormons who express a religious preference (most of whom are Christians themselves), more than six-in-ten (62%) say that Mormonism and their own religion are very different; just a quarter says that Mormonism and their own religion have a lot in common. The vast majority of white evangelical Protestants (67%) reject the idea that Mormonism and their own religion have a lot in common, as do smaller majorities of white mainline Protestants (56%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (61%). Mormonism in a Word When asked to describe their impression of the Mormon religion in a single word, somewhat more offer a negative word than a positive one (27% vs. 23%); 19% give a neutral descriptor. The most common negative word expressed is “polygamy,” including “bigamy” or some other reference to plural marriage (75 total responses), followed by “cult” (57 total mentions). But while many people associate polygamy with Mormonism, nearly as many think of “family” or “family values” (74 total mentions). Other positive words commonly used to describe Mormonism include “dedicated” (34 mentions), “devout” or “devoted” (32 mentions), “good” (31 mentions), and “faith” or “faithful” (25 total mentions). Familiarity with Mormonism and Mormons Overall, the public’s level of self-reported familiarity with Mormonism and Mormons is not much greater than its level of familiarity with Islam and Muslims. Roughly half (49%) say they know a great deal or some about the Mormon religion and its practices, while about as many people (48%) say that they know someone who is Mormon. (By comparison, 41% have at least some knowledge of Islam and 45% say they know a Muslim.) As might be expected, people in the Western part of the United States have more contact and greater familiarity with Mormons than do people in other parts of the country. Fully 74% of those in the West say they know a Mormon, compared with fewer than half in other regions. In addition, 66% of Westerners say they know a great deal or some about the Mormon religion, also a much higher proportion than among residents of other regions. Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants show somewhat greater familiarity with Mormons and Mormonism, compared with white mainline Protestants, white non-Hispanic Catholics, and the religiously unaffiliated. Just as knowing a Muslim is associated with positive views of Muslims and Islam, having an acquaintance who is Mormon is linked with more positive opinions of Mormons and Mormonism. The large majority of those who know a Mormon (60%) express a favorable view of Mormons, compared with fewer than half (44%) of those who do not personally know a Mormon. And those who are acquainted with a Mormon are 11 points more likely than others to say that Mormonism and their own religion have a lot in common. But compared with knowing someone who is Mormon, one’s view of whether or not Mormonism is a Christian religion has a much greater impact on overall opinions of Mormons. Among non-Mormons who see Mormons as Christian, more than two-thirds (68%) express a favorable view of Mormons, twice as many as among those who say Mormonism is not a Christian religion (34%). Equally striking, fully 42% of those who believe the Mormon religion is not Christian say they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon for president; among those who believe Mormonism is a Christian religion, just 16% express reluctance about supporting a Mormon. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Section 2: Views of Mormons and Mormonism Overall, a slim majority of the public (53%) expresses a favorable view of Mormons, while 27% view Mormons unfavorably. Among religious groups, solid majorities of white mainline Protestants (62%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (59%) express favorable opinions of Mormons. But among white evangelical Protestants, just 46% have a positive impression of Mormons, while 39% have an unfavorable opinion. There also are substantial educational differences in opinions about Mormons: 64% of college graduates express favorable opinions of Mormons, as do 56% of those with some college experience. But fewer than half of those with a high school education or less (45%) have a positive impression of Mormons. About three-in-ten (31%) of those who express favorable opinions of Mormons cite personal experience as the biggest influence on their opinions, but a fairly large proportion of those with negative opinions of Mormons (23%) also point to their personal experiences as being most influential. A slim majority of the public (52%) says that Mormonism is a Christian religion, while nearly one-in-three (31%) say that Mormonism is not a Christian religion. White evangelicals stand out for their view that the Mormon religion is not Christian: a 45% plurality says that Mormonism is not Christian, while 40% say it is. Among white evangelicals who attend services at least weekly, 52% believe that the Mormon religion is not Christian. By contrast, large majorities of white mainline Protestants (62%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (59%) say that Mormons are Christians. In addition, those with no formal religious affiliation also say that the Mormon religion is Christian by a wide margin (59%-25%). Even though a slim majority of the public views Mormonism as a Christian religion, most Americans say it is very different from their own religion.

yes

Religion

Are Mormons Christian?

no_statement

"mormons" are not christians. mormonism is not considered a part of christianity

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2012/afraid-of-mormons/

Why We're Afraid of Mormons | BU Today | Boston University

A recent USA Today story highlights how many Americans are “uninformed” about, and “wary” of, Mormonism, put off by such practices as the wearing of blessed undergarments as the sign of full fellowship in the church. And even though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy in the 1890s (with the exception of a militant sliver), some non-Mormons suspect that “fundamentalist groups were somehow hiding in plain sight within the fold of the church,” says scholar Cristine Hutchison-Jones (GRS’11). In fact, she says, “no one has been more aggressive about prosecuting polygamists in this country in the 20th and 21st century than Mormons.” As for that underwear thing, she notes that other religions invest certain garb with sacred significance. Facts aside, Mitt Romney’s Mormonism has alarmed some conservative Christian voters pondering his run for president. Hutchison-Jones, a Harvard University administrator, is not Mormon, but an interest in religious intolerance led her to write her BU doctoral dissertation on “Reviling and Revering the Mormons: Defining American Values, 1890-2008.” (Those years marked the official Mormon abandonment of polygamy and Mitt Romney’s first run for president, respectively.) She began with the assumption that this would be another American story of a minority’s assimilation into, and acceptance by, the mainstream culture. To her surprise, she learned that Mormonism remains “really problematic for a lot of people. The negative images of Mormons far outlasted my expectations.” If voters’ self-description can be trusted, things may not be so grim. A Pew Forum poll in July found 81 percent saying that they were comfortable with, or indifferent to, Romney’s faith. BU Today spoke with Hutchison-Jones about what prejudice against Mormons says about us and the prospects for Romney’s second bid for the White House. BU Today: What do Americans in 2012 think of Mormons, and how much of what they think is accurate? Hutchison-Jones: I think a lot of what Americans think they know about Mormonism is wrong. We think of Sister Wives and Big Love [TV shows about polygamous apostate Mormons]. There’s been a strong theme in the last 30 years in popular representations of Mormons of Mormon violence against non-Mormons, pioneer violence. There was a film in 2007 called September Dawn, about the Mountain Meadows massacre in 1857 [the slaughter of a wagon train by Mormon militia]. It is very historically inaccurate. I have gotten calls from friends and family who catch it on HBO and say, “I learned so much from that movie.” Why do negative images of Mormons linger? There are a couple of reasons. You had the rise of evangelical Christianity in politics, and for conservative Protestant Christians, Mormons are not Christians; Mormons are a cult. So you had an increase in the amount of anti-Mormon propaganda coming out of religious communities. The other people who are uncomfortable with Mormons are socially and politically liberal Americans. Polls ask, would you vote for a Mormon presidential candidate? People who self-identify as liberal have a tendency to say no. There’s a tendency to see Mormons as a hegemony, as if they were en masse in thrall to church leadership. The Moral Majority reached out to Mormons, and because of that association, liberals tend to see Mormons as off-limits. I had to get over some of that myself. That was the expectation I came into my research with. I headed off to the Mormon History Association national conference, and the group of scholars there are by and large Mormon, and they are not in any kind of political lockstep. There’s a wide diversity of opinion. With the Moral Majority, it seems Mormons were crawling into bed politically with people who had a prejudice against them. It’s true. In the 1980s, the New York Times didn’t know what to do with Orrin Hatch, who rode into the Senate as a conservative Republican Mormon. Then conservative Republicans proposed a school prayer amendment to the Constitution. He said, “Absolutely not. I am part of a minority religion that has been abused, and I am not going to be party to telling anyone how they should or should not pray.” Hatch famously went on to work with Ted Kennedy for federally funded children’s health care. Mormons have a very strong sense of the common good. The guys who did South Park did Book of Mormon on Broadway. I would argue, vulgarity aside, that they have one of the most sympathetic and understanding perspectives on Mormons of contemporary representations. They never talk about polygamy, because they see it as ancient history, which it is. If there is so much misperception, do universities need to offer more course work on Mormonism? Any religion-in-the-United States course that’s taught in the department of religion is going to cover it. How well it’s covered, that’s another question. Mormonism usually gets a day. Whether or not you can justify an entire course, because they are less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, might be a little hard. On the other hand, Jews are an extremely small minority, and every university worth its salt has some kind of Judaic studies. And Mormonism is growing by leaps and bounds. The last time I saw a syllabus for [College of Arts & Sciences religion professor] Steve Prothero’s undergraduate course on religion in the United States, it included Jan Shipps’ book on Mormonism. It isn’t just a one-day passing thing. It’s reaching a point where it probably deserves some discussion in the context of world religion classes. What do Americans’ views of Mormonism say about our ideals and values? It boils down to our sense of ourselves as a nation in which church and state are separate. I would argue that Americans aren’t separating all religion from all politics. We’re just not comfortable with groups that don’t fit into a generally moderate, Protestant mold. I’ve got a colleague who did his PhD on images of conservative Christians as villains in Hollywood cinema. You can almost certainly tell in any crime drama that if somebody quotes the Bible, you’re later going to find out that they’re a psychopathic killer. And we’re nervous about groups who openly say the church should be involved in our politics, whatever that church might be for that group. And Mormons wear their religion on their sleeve. The average Mormon spends something like 20 hours per week in activities at their local congregation. It’s really the core and center of their community, and they are absolutely open that their religion informs their social and political values. And Americans don’t like that. Do you think Romney might lose the election because of his religion? I think if Romney loses, it’s going to be for a variety of reasons. And yes, Mormonism may be problematic for him going forward. Conservative voters might be a little less enthusiastic about getting out the vote because they’re nervous that he’s a Mormon, and they’re the ones he needs. And you may find independents who find his politics appealing, but some of them might be put off by the association with Mormonism and the concern that Mormons are all conservatives. Explore Related Topics: Share Share Rich Barlow Senior Writer Rich Barlow is a senior writer at BU Today and Bostonia magazine. Perhaps the only native of Trenton, N.J., who will volunteer his birthplace without police interrogation, he graduated from Dartmouth College, spent 20 years as a small-town newspaper reporter, and is a former Boston Globe religion columnist, book reviewer, and occasional op-ed contributor. Profile Comments & Discussion Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation. Interesting how society now accepts gay marriage as a legitimate relationship and condemns anyone who questions it as bigoted and hateful, yet society overwhelmingly rejects polygamy. If it’s wrong and mean spirited to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, than it is equally wrong and mean spirited to say that marriage is only between two people. If it makes people happy to be part of a polygamist relationship, than that’s their business. If society is going to redefine marriage, it’s hypocritical to not allow polygamy and anything else that may make people happy. Haha! The spoon is a funny scenario and maybe a bit of a stretch, but it’s not a stretch to say that within the next 50 years people will want to marry domestic pets. After all, science teaches that humans are evolved animals, so it’s not a stretch to think that their are people out there who would marry their dog of cat if it was an option. The difference is in the fact that polygamy can be damaging to society. In a polygamist society there would be a dangerous number of unmarried men which tends to increase crime and is unfair. There are high rates of depression in societies with demographic gender imbalances, as with too many men in China and too few in Russia. Polygamy creates problems in parts of Africa as well. I disagree with GC that only polygamy can be damaging to society. Same sex marriage can be equally (if not more) destructive. Think of it this way, if the entire human race suddenly paired up in to same sex couples, this shift in society would result in the extinction of the entire human race whithin at least a century. We generally are completley accepting of people from all reaces and sexualities. We beleve that marrage should be between a man and a woman, since that is what our scriptures say, and that you should remain pure untill married, but we have no problem with people being made the way they are. Everyone is perfect in the eyes of God. I am going to have to agree with Brent on this one. Its hypocritical for society to demand everybody to accept the love between two people of the same sex but reject 3 or more consenting adults (keywords). Fanatic religious sects that force teenage girls into plural marriages is not the definition of polygamy. Just like I don’t have a problem with two guys who want to get married, neither do I with a guy and 3 women. Its their personal life and doesn’t effect me. The analogy of the spoon doesn’t work because the spoon cannot consent to the marriage, it is unable to sign a marriage certificate. If it could though, I would say let it marry whomever it wishes. You say that marriages other than traditional marriage between a man a a woman don’t affect you, but from my experience that would be like me sayi8ng in 1950 that the few who started to experiment with drugs would never affect me. The problem is that both lead to a breakdown in society and a loss of our moral comopass. It’s my belief that what goes on behind closed doors affects all of us, and that everyone should endevor to do their very best in keeping the commandments. Just think how much better our world would be if everyone was just keeping the ten commandments. Saying that how people live their personal life doesn’t affect you would be like me saying in 1950 that the one person in 5,000 that was experimenting with drugs would never affect me. The problem with marriages other than traditional marriage is that it would cause a breakdown of our society, and a loss to our moral compass. Actually, that is already taking place. I was 17 years old before I ever heard a girl swear, and I was raised in the San Francisco bay area. Only one girl in my high school got pregnant while I was going there, and she got married as did everyone else. Oh, for the good old days in that respect. very very small amounts of LDS followers (Mormons) are polygamists as a Mormon I can say that only some were and that is because of their personal decisions and it being socialy acceptable at the time the only difference is we belive different things how is that any different from orthodox christians and catholics why are we being discriminated against for no reason? Maybe the countless number of generations before us who accepted marriage as between a man and a woman weren’t bigots after all. Maybe their view of marriage as a sacred relationship between one man and one woman actually protected society from the potential instability and, dare i say, harm that could come from opening the door on re-defining what a marriage is and isn’t. Pardon me for just jumping into this, Em, but if you read the response you wrote to Brother French, you will understand why I am writing this. Remember that when you read it, imagine you are the recipient. I don’t know about you, but I would not want someone to say this to me. Because it may turn around and come back at you. Someone may say something like this to you and you may not like it. So please, to give everyone their free opinion, try not to say stuff like this in the future. You are entitled to your opinion just as Brother French is entitled to his. We need to respect the other person’s opinion just as we would want them to respect ours. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Brent, I have read ESCAPE, by Carolyn Jessop, CHURCH OF LIES, by flora Jessop, and SHATTERED DREAMS, by Irene Spencer. The stories are similar in so many ways that I can’t help but believe that arranged marriages for young girls, to older men dates at least back to the 1940s. Females are brainwashed from birth to accept a marriage that forces them to share their husbands with other women. Still their natural human reaction is to want their husband to be faithful to them only. The “lost boys” are kicked out as young as 14 years old, to provide young ‘wives” for the older ruling men. Welfare fraud is rampant, and is referred to as: “Bleeding the beast”. Inbreeding is so rampant that fumaraise defiency is the worst on the earth, leaving children developmentally damaged for life. So parents can collect social security for them). Women are not allowed to drive licensed vehicles, to prevent escape. In Hilldale UT, and Colorado City AZ, the fundamentalist Mormon church controls all public services, including law enforcement. If you believe that the Mormon church does not tolerate polygamy, why was there no prosecutions for polygamy in Utah for 60 years, prior to Warren Jeffs arrest. Then the UT Supreme court threw out his rape conviction. It took Texas to prosecute and convict him for child rape. When asked, Senator Orrin Hatch said of polygamists: “They are nice people” Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. I respect your right to disagree, but as a retired victim advocate, my sympathy is for the abused women in the FLDS. I could go on for hours! Also, lookup Judge Haynes 2009 exposed himself in public bathrooms uncovered by an undercover he exposed himself to Justice K. Durham sent him on paid leave instead of prison=till the press died down then he kept his seat 2 more yrs!!!!!!!!!!!! Also in utah the church tells members not to read the news or nonfiction anything that will make them smart. Or think for themselves or give them autonomy. Theyre totally controlled through cameras that are everywhere, you cant go to the mall w/o them taking your picture unauthorized if you cross a public bridge but sinceits in slc, ut everything is private property your car will get booted even if you park an inch or 1/8 an in. Out of a line 24 hrs to pay a tow man who wants 100/15min. Goes through a police auction The men gang up on the women here even if the woman is right if its a mormon theyll seem nice at first but as soon as you defend yourself to their disrespect all the others anyone around whos male they gang up on the woman. You can watch a woman and kids be beatup here and noone does a thing its sick and disgusting The white dispatchers will take a report but mexicans wont I need to make something very clear. Polygamy was practiced for one reason only when it began early on in the church. To provide stability to families who had lost their husband/father. Much of the church was targeted and many men were killed leaving behind the need for women and their children to have a breadwinner and caretaker. It happened in less than 4% of the household and less than 10% of those households had more than two wives. Only the most righteous men were encouraged ( just about every source that is out there stating that all men were encouraged to join polygamy, simply not true) to practice a marriage that would in fact save families from being without a father and the dysfunctional practices that involves from present day statistics. So your account is just inaccurate. There are many scholars, not Mormon, that have shed the truthful light on this and many other misconceptions about the Mormon(Christian) religion. I encourage you to seek out the truth and look beyond quick articles and biased works. In addition the situations you are referring to are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These are of their own sect and have removed themselves from the church. Please for the sake of all freedom’s and religions, read unbiased sources and many at that, before forming an opinion that could keep you from true enlightenment. I also want to add that I find it amusing that those who claim to be so “open minded” are the one’s who’s minds are most apt to keep out truth and other’s ideas. Two different people and churches, mis information and conceptions. I agree suppression of a women is crazy. I am LDS my spouse is my equal we are about family and living Christ Like. We don’t judge other people and we are not perfect like all of us. We believe in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I can go on. I Urge you to sincerely pray for your on answers. Read the Bible, Read the Book of Mormon listen to your thoughts and feeling. Polygamy is not acceptable in the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ religion. It ,”IS NOT “ condoned . It IS NOT a practice. The same as gay marriage. ( not condoned ) sex between a married man and woman only. Anything else is grounds for violation of Covenants ( a two way promise/ commitment in relationship with Jesus Christ’s Gospel principles) But society DOESN’T fully accept gay marriage. The bigotry that Mormons experience is a direct result of the bigotry they impose upon advocates of gay marriage. Mormons fighting gay marriage with their non-taxed temple money is well-documented. So Mormons don’t want to be taxed, but they want to control public policy. Mix this hypocrisy in with their belief in Magic Underwear, and they are simply not suitable to be in power…especially as POTUS!!! Unfortunately, bigotry is the only language they understand. I will gladly accept polygamy over bigotry and stupidity. MAGIC IS NOT REAL! Until Mormons accept that their ways are lunacy, I will stick with the same bigotry that they use with such ease. I find this incredibly disrespectful. We don’t believe in magic, but we have sacred garments not unlike people of other faiths who wears religious head dressings, clothes that symbolize religious devotion, and most people wouldn’t mock them directly for such a thing. We also consider marriage a sacred thing, and it has, until recent years, been accepted as something of traditional significance and as well as of moral significance. We consider homosexual relations, or any relation outside of marriage. My dad is a bishop. if marriage were to be legalized in Arizona, he would be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, against his beliefs, or face fining or jail time for discrimination. This is only one of many issues I’ve encountered with this debate. I have plenty of gay friends, each of which I love and respect, but when societal views interfere with our religious freedoms and retainment of morals, I feel a responsibility to object. Aubrey, the same constitution that prevents your religion from dictating how people outside your church regard marriage also protects your religion from being forced into doing anything it does not believe in. So long as Church and State remain separate, no Mormon bishop will ever be forced to conduct a same sex marriage. So long as we ALL have the freedom of religion (and freedom FROM it), no government or special interest group will ever be able to force same sex marriages within your temples. Ironically, legalization of same-sex marriages actually does more to protect your religion, in my view. Because if gays cannot marry based on the beliefs of religious groups, then that means we really don’t have separation of Church and State. And if we don’t have that, what’s to stop other religions from imposing their viewpoints on yours? Mormonism is a minority religion, after all. If other denominations got together and decided to impose their political might on minority religions that they view as a threat , Mormons would be screwed. Kent, Have you heard the term a slippery slope? With each change in law and policy, norms that are become norms that were. You say That separation of church and state will protect this from happening. That is simply not true. Rome wasn’t built in a day and slowly but surely as each change happens and each law is created, what we hold as inalienable rights, get stolen from beneath us. Can you say today that your statement is correct. I would say no. Businesses have been persecuted and sued because what they deem as their religious right to refuse service to those that disobey God’s commandments per their religion goes against what the politically correct ascertain as bad or against what should be. Your statement about it helping religion is a false statement. The state is enacting it’s authority over church to force a religion to go against it’s core beliefs and is placing in its place its’ own agenda and beliefs. Anyone that can repeatedly predict the future, even 5 minutes into it, would be teh worlds richest investor, so apparently that is probably not the case, most of the time. Could you have predicted todays laws 100 years ago? Can you predict laws 100 years into the future–im am sure they will defy the morals of today. If one thing is certain, it is that laws are constantly changing. Now, interestingly enough, whether clergy can be forced to marry same sex is a supreme court issue–why would it be an issue if the idea were completely unthinkale? Clergy dont just marry their own members, but people from the public. And what was the first step? gay marriage legality of course. The discrimination claim will probably persist though until laws are changed. Additionally, with similar laws, religious schools will likely be forced to turn down federal funding, as has happened in the past, and incl Canada, which will create an uneven playing ground as well. I dont like govt/ subsidization in the first place since it often leads to this (as well as artificially higher prices), but that is besides the point. So magic isn’t real?? What about miracles? Magic/ miricles… Same meaning, different sounds. Jesus formed miricles, did he not? So saying magic/ miricles isn’t real is like saying good isn’t real, right? My 12 year old daughter is autistic~(high end). Never been to church or talked about God much. I believed in God, but had lack of faith in him until my daughter started talking about God, and what it was like to be in heaven before we were born. She would tell stories on how you were able to choose your own family, how you talk to each other with your minds and how there were 3 different ways to carry on after you pass this physical life/body. She talked of the Book of Life, and oh so much more. She doesn’t like the fact that she sees spirits and loved ones that have passed on and how she doesn’t have any friends so she talks to herself quite a bit so she doesn’t have to hear the quietness if solitude. She asks why God made her the way he did if he’s perfect and she’s not. She can walk down the road and look at someone and instantly tell where they just came from or she will cry in pain because she feels e everyone’s plain around her. When she is having a good day for says that God made her special than everyone else and she has these”magic” powers for a reason and she just needs to open her mind and heart to what God is asking if her. There is a reason for everything, Treat others as you would like to be treated, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT judge others for not believing in the same was as you do. Love one another and forgive.. pray, if not for God, then for your own happiness. We all have a choice to get along, be happy, do what is right. Nobody has the strength or the power to make you feel the way they want you to feel. You have the choice and it is yours alone. We all need to own up to our own wrongdoings, and try to do our best with what we have. Learn be happy with what you have, and not sad for the things you have not. It’s not that hard, we just need to attempt too and the rest will come with ease. We need opposition so I guess since I believe in God, I have to believe in Satan as well, but am I worried about where I will go when I pass this world? 100% NO!! I know where I’m going and I may not want to die but I am not afraid to. But hey, that’s just me, and my own personal testimony. And I’m a Virgo, so accepting a final decision for me is a huge step for mankind. Take care everyone and may your today’s be better than your yesterdays but not as great as your tomorrow’s I appreciated your comment. I think it’s one of the few that are less about crticizing and more about building up, which is in dwindling supplies these day. Interestingly enough, I have read 100’s of similar pre-birth accounts, although rare, their concepts overlap by a large amount. It’s very interesting to consider a scientific basis for this. P.S. Non-explainable phenomenon (miracles, as well as magic) is an enemy to modern science, which is why it’s increasingly criticized. IF the modern age ends, it will be back en vogue (coming soon Im sure). Lost respect for Oprah is the one who uncovers frauds of people needs to read: “Under The Banner of Heaven” by jon krakauer to understand why she shouldnt have had him on her show. 1. 1990-91 Mormon church office putup a block put out flyers to brainwash members not to vote for equal rights of women/blacks==she shouldve asked romney if a black woman can be in mormon presidency or hold a position in office==Women are to have the kids along with be beaten put on prozac institutionalized if they defend themselves or file in court domestic violence the mormon judges will make them lose their kids home be on the streets== ask romney why 4 deseret industries a mormon run business sit in back of the shelters where all donations go to be sold in their stores nationwide and recycled= boys ranches paid off by local mormon judges where they get tortured abused and killed off disowned by fam members for acting out the mormon who adopted a russian child and sent him back???! mormons who hate on pedestrians harass them while they wait for trains yell out at them degrading class degrading cruel words mostly by youth mormon boys guys girls driving their parents suvs if you dont have a car in slc, youre a single woman young youre treated like s. like dirt or not standing next to a man youre outed its a member only community sociallite type of yet gay hillbilly barnyard aholes who heavily discriminate against anyone they see as lower class which are nonmembers even if youre not the tunnels underground a whole different side they lie cheat steal do drugs bring in drugs from s. america mexico the local Ogden, utah police force madeup of mormons fbi agents, dea sado masochists is what these people are generation after generation worship child rapists and murderers, they teach young boys theyre above girls so they stick objects up their genitals in barns and wonder why the youth is addicted to meth, crack etc turn them into prostitutes with HIV syphilis meth has been stastically documented but the HIV stats here notorious undocumented Larry h miller pays or gets paid to allow nuclear waste to be dropped off by trains 2hrs away and when the wind blows from the west we all breathe it in slowly to our own slow deaths==the other gases breathed besides the nuc waste that make the inversion slc has the worst air nationwide worse then LA, CA. but these sick people turn their heads party look for sex parties sadism/masochists who hate women say our grandchildren our children are here so they stay== wonder why they get ms or tb or hiv or early heart attacks strokes they just smile and act like everythings fine while the world falls apart around them they just eat theyre pigs they eat trash mcdonalds fast food all addicts obese addicts who gorge themselves and then pay for prostitutes disgusting filth of lives b young led mass murder of the franco wagon families piled their bodies sick like a pyramid proud of his deaths like hitler among raping the girls boys theyre mormons they think theyre gods they worship him on a statute j. smith same evil they spared one 4 yr old girl they didnt think shed remember, jon krakauer a journalist tracked her down her interview is in his history book on the violent mormon corp. led by all bus execs, lawyers, ceos, only prestitious positions who can control power of their monopoly I think, so many people are so in tune on the Mormons, that they forgot, we are all Humans, there are so many religions out there! Why the Mormons? Because of Romney running for a president! Well U think all the Mormons are for him? A lot of us don’t agree with what he wants to do, if he’s in the office. I myself not for him, and You all forgot! We all believed! Jesus is our Saviour! Pray n ask for forGiveness, stop being ignorant toward the Mormons, a lot of us are very down to earth, caring, loving, respectful, concern, helping, spiritually, prayerfully, kindness, people you will ever get to know, and knowing..no matter who or what you are! Or what religion you are! We are all equal in the eye of Our Heavenly Father!..people should pray more!..and keep in Mind! What! And Who ever does in their Lives! Is their own doing, not anyone’s or any Religions Fault, their action is their Own, just because people do Stupid, ridiculous, out of Ordinary things! Is their own doing and their own Action..People Stop pointing fingers to Whomever they want to Discredited! Get a Life! n Pray, diligently!..Should never be Afraid toward the Mormons. We all the same, nothing’s wrong with any religion,…we all should be very thankful for all thy many Blessings we all being bless with in our Lives….Thank You… Yes, thank you!! I completely agree. I just feel like I have to add some things. Some of your thoughts on Mormons might be based on people you know who are Mormons and aren’t that nice or good. But I will remind you that the Catholic church backed up Hitler in WW2. And one is as against them as they are to Mormons. There are good and bad people out there no matter their religion. Mormons aren’t bad and neither any other people in any other church. I personly think that judging people on their religion is dumb and that you should judge them on their actions and not judge the religion off of those actions. You should be afraid if youre not a member. read under the banner of heaven by j. krakauer to know why also any members church leaders think and believe and teach there authority is above the law they dont honor the constition theyre prophets are against it. they want control of the world which does not inc education for women its all men in their world. also read a mormon america by ostlers dude you are totally ignorant on the subject of Mormonism! In the “Articles of Faith” which states what Mormons believe it say that they believe “in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Women are encouraged to become educated, many women go to college and are still Mormons. Although men do hold priesthood powers in Mormonism, a family cant be had without women, and the family is central to Mormonism. So next time you go bashing on a religion you should study and learn about that religion. You are on of the people that this article was written for. just need to clear this up for a second, this is the kind of lies people who are afraid of members are spreading. This isn’t true. I am a female in the church, and I have not been denied an education, in fact all teh general women’s sessions and all our leaders encourage us to learn, and keep on learning until we’re old and grey. We have articles of faith, small passages that tell you a lot about what we do. We believe in obeying the law, and in freedom, that’s like a big thing. If you really don’t think I’m being truthful contact your local branch and have someone teach you, attend a sunday meeting. We are a christian religion, and we have another scriptural book. That’s teh only difference. Christan you got to be kidding true christananity is the believing in the God ove the bible the one that has always been God not previously a man from a defrent planet. Jesus was born of a vergin who conceived him by the holy spirit not by a god that has a physical body that Mormonism believes in God of the bible has no physical body the mormon god who has a physical body and had sexual relationship with there Mary so one must conclude the mormon Mary wasn’t a vergin when she gave birth to there jesus. “We believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents rulers and Magistrates- In obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.” -Article of faith #12 Written by Joseph Smith to explain what the members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints believe. Oh ya, that really sounds like we don’t respect authority. Please get your information from reliable unbiased sources. The information you are posting is completely INCORRECT. We don’t controll an entire state, our members just like being together, so we aren’t in a world full of things we don’t partake in. It get’s pretty lonely being the only member in your school/place of work. People always offer you alcohol, which we don’t drink, or coffe which most members choose not to drink either. It is culural, as specific areas of the world have culture, and specific people do. For example the culture of washington isn’t politics since all the big politicians live there, but the culture of politicians isn’t always the same as washington. If people wan’t to leave our church they are free to do so. We do not scilence voices, in fact we ask for all sorts of people to talk to us, and to travel to talk to others. What this little expose did’t mention is that polygamy was outlawed by the church as part of an agreement for Utah to become a state. I am currently enrolled at the Univ of Utah and i can tell you that there are plenty of polygamist colonies still around out here and I know several students who come from that life. Matt- Yes, it is true that the Church in 1890 had to be coerced strongly into giving up polygamy. They were terrified of what that would mean for their families. At the time, many members were okay with the thought of no future polygamous marriages, but what did it mean for the existing ones? It had become illegal for a man to be in the same room as his wife. How was he to love and support her and her children if he couldn’t be available to them? How would you like being told that you could never see your wife or children again? Would you jump for joy and sign the dotted line? They couldn’t do that. Marriage and family are central tenets of the LDS faith. They loved their wives. They adored their children. They wanted to be a part of their lives. And somehow you see that as a negative and something to tar all current Mormons with? I think that was a very kind, compassionate, and entirely understandable position for them. However, I think you would be severely hard pressed to find a modern Mormon that was interested in bringing the practice back to the Church. In fact, we are asked in an interview by our congregational leaders every other year if we support polygamous groups. It is not a supported opinion. Anonymous. And others. Apparently all of u are not aware of the real beliefs of LDS. You truly have the FLDS mixed up with LDS. Latter Day Saint men respect and love their spouses. Would never degrade them the way you are talking about. Whether it be in UT or any other state. You want to know the truth, contact the missionaries. They can set you straight and maybe you might even feel the spirit tell you that what you are hearing is correct If you took the time to find as many positives about the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You would find that there are more “positives” about the “religion”within the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints then there are negatives. Without knowing history of the church, you could easily be persuaded by others that have no factual information based on rumor, and partial facts. Just like small children that pick up profanity, it being negative and easy to say. I feel as adults we do the same thing on different topics disagree. It’s to tear people down to cause others to disbelieve. The church how’s the Book Of Mormon Another Testiment of Jesus Christ and non of the other religions have it, and so therefore just because you people think we are not true then read the Book Of Mormon and most of the same stuff that is in the Bible is in the Book Of Mormon. People say CRAP about Mormons, just because they say stuff doesn’t mean that it is true. i am personally a Mormon, and i am horrified to see the fact that some, very inconsiderate, people call the LDS church a cult! A: We tell people that only they can decide whether they believe in the church or not, which is true! And if they decide not, No hard feelings! we don’t be mean to them afterwards, we respect their choice, whether to be part of another religion, or not one at all. Ok, I’m better know, and I was not trying to accuse, just clear things up. I disagree that this article is thoughtful or intelligent, it reflects a completely false view of Mormons and asserts that they are victims of untruths related to historical facts. Come live here in Utah ans see the manipulation and interference in our community by the LDS and the rest of the ignorant followers. If this lady got her PHD then it should be invalidated. You can’t use personal experience to try to argue against general trends and truths. Secondly, I would assert that member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints don’t “interfere” or influence communities in which they are the majority any more than other religious groups in other areas. I agree with the article and wish more people were educated on the history of discrimination against church members and why it exists. this is the biggest lie i have ever heard and if you belive it you are stiuped and a idiot because this is not true because they are kind people and i am one and it is Church of jeues christ of latter day saints. thank you amercia for the supussed freedom of religon but yet we are still proscuted look up Haun’s mill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me just say this. I have been raised Mormon. I’m now 65 years of age. This man thinks he knows do much but really he doesn’t. . a first of poligomy shouldn’t Eve be a topic as it is not practiced at all. Secondly there is nothing to fear about Mormons. We are kind loving people that are close knit famines. That raise our children to be kind to serve others and to be good examples to their peers. We do not worship Joseph smith nor do we worship the book of Mormon.we read and use the bible to teach in our homes and at church and yes we do see the book of Mormon as a rupture it it’s the history of the people who lived in ancient America and we believe that it contains information for this dispensation of time. It’s no different that biblical scriptures that have been found from time to time that was lost that’s not in our current bible’s. Joseph Smith was a young boy, his daddy was a Presbyterian preacher. He went to that church and all the other churches and he was a confused kid that asked his dad why are there so many different churches and yet they all teach some of the same but yet so many different things. It doesn’t make sense. Well this bothered him all thet time do he decided he was going into a grove in the woods and was going to ask God. So that’s what he did. A curious and confused little boy. So he goes to the woods gets down obvious knees and ask God I go to all these different churches. They all teach good things but they all teach different things about the bible. Which one do I believe? Which one is true? God answers pin none of them as they only have part of the truth..suddenly before him he has 3 brings dressed in white ribs and shod says you will receive further instruction but join none of them. He goes back home and tells his dad and of course at first his dad didn’t believe him. So as he lays in bed a couple nights later he is woken by the presence of these same 3 heavenly beings Heavenly Father is son Jesus Christ and the Holy ghost. All dressed in white and could see into their buzz on. He describes what they look like. They then festive the place he needed to go and their he would find golden plates . this place was hill colors I new York. He follows the instructions , finds these plates and there was a grimy and things in which he woukd use to translate these plates. He did and this is where the book of Mormon, doctrine and covents and pearl of great price came from. Ok so you say this seems just to far fetched but think about it even though I was raised in the Mormon church lament to many other churches because I was c aligned with what I was taught. I would ask my friends questions about things and add but does your preacher ever tell you this or that. They said niurious about what they taught.a lot of what some taught made sense to me,a lot of what they taught was what I was taught. I would ask my friends does your preacher or priest ever teach you this or that..no they said. So now I’m finding myself confused. I knew the only way I could find the truth he only way I could establish my own testimony of my church or these other churches was to pray about it. I was 15 yrs old. I didn’t want to say I believes it because my dad said so. So I prayed about it. I asked shod if the book of Mormon was indeed another testament if the ancient America the Indians that lived here before us and was it the word of God along with the bible. I got my answer loud and clear. No I didn’t have a vision but tears ran down my cheeks remember getting house bumps and I knew it was true. So it may seem far fetched to you but if you just imagine a little boy being so curious and so confused about all these different churches why would it be so strange that he go before God and ask? Anything that I’m in doubt about anything that troubles me I know all I have to do is be sincere and humble myself before God and I will be directed. I wanted to know the same thing and I got my own answer but Joseph Smith had a special calling and that was to bring forth the book of Mormon and lead the people. Yes we believe he was a modern day Prohet. We believe God used him to restore the gospel as you remember in the bible the gospel was lost and we believe as I said that Joseph Smith was called as a modern day Prophet. The Mormon church teaches the important e of the family unit and kick g our lives to the best of our sanity do that we can return one day and live in his presence.. We believe in Jesus Christ that he is the son of God. We believe he suffered those bearings carried his own cross and was nailed to the cross died for bus that each of our sins would be forgiven and then rise from the tomb 3 days later so that we to would rise from our graves be resurrected and have eternal life. We believe in the gift of the Holy ghost. That he softly whispers to us to guide us direct us to lead us back to our Heavenly father for all time and eternity. We are not a strange people. There is nothing to fear of us. We would love you accept you and help you.not me you were in need.whrher it be Mitt Romney or another Mormon that would run for President and should he be elected as our President . in no way would that person try to inflict Mormon beliefs into the American people but this person would have his country and the American people first in his heart. He would pray for God’s direction I leading America. He wouldn’t just make decisions based on discussion with his administration but he would count on his Father in Heaven to advise and direct but never would he use that position to promote his beliefs. First of all the church does not talk about politics with members. All they ever say or do is to encourage the members to be diligent in their prayers as they pray for guidance to invite for the president that they feel sure shod is directing them to vote for. Should a Mormon be called adolescent I can promise you that the church itself would not allow him to use any of the church doctrine in any of his speeches nor in any of his dealings as president. The church leafetd6 would never allow it. We have millions of missionaries through our the world to carry the gospel to every corner of the earth. That is their calling but not the calling of a president. I did not write this with intent to create debates over religion. . I did write this to help people see there is nothing to fear of any of us that are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I do admonish all who read this to openly minded pray yourselves about what I’ve said here instead of just believing what someone says about us. Find a Mormon church and attend just one meet in that’s a little over an hour long I and I feel sure that you will see there is nothing to fear. We all have been given our free agency ur free will, the right to our opinion. If your opinion differs from mine that’s perfectly on. As in sure my opinion would differ from yours but that’s ok. I find it quite offensive to hear so many talk against my church. Yet they only know what they have been told. They have never stepped foot inside the door of a Mormon church for a meeting. They have never sat down with the missionaries and talked with them and felt their sweet spirits. They just read anti morni literature often to people such as this man who wrote this article that professes to have all the facts . that just knows if Mitt Romney or any other Mormon would become president the world would have to be in fear. I’m here to tell you that’s untruth. . The Mormon Church has taught me so much about Christ. I’m very grateful for my testimony of the gospel. As I said I’m not trying to covert any one or tell you to go to the Mormon church and I know you don’t know me but you also don’t know the man who wrote this article. Who would know more about the church me as a member my entire life or someone who claims to have researched it when his research has been anti Mormon. That would be the same as me reading and I Baptist material and then comi g on a public site and tell I g people you need to fear Baptist. There isms good in all churches that teach about Jesus Christ my concerns about someone funny g for President isn’t what church they belong to but my concerns are their integrity, their honesty, is America and the American people your first concern what are your intentions towards bring peace to America, do to and will you support our law enforcement had to you plan on doing to stop the violence that’s broke out in so many cities, are you interested in being prayer back in our schools, what are your views on immigration, social security, retirement etc. But I’m not concerned over what church you belong to. I would want to know that whoever is running believes in God and would like to know that to run this country you would be leaning on God for direction. But I wouldn’t be scared of you because you belong to a certain religion unless of course it was a satanic religion. I think most of us wouldn’t want that. So I just ask don’t believe everything you hear. If you believe in prayer ask God if you need to fear a Mormon or a Mormon president ask sincerely and with an open mind and I know you would be led to not have to fear.. I know this was long. I appreciate anyone who took the time to read this. I’m not going tomorrow read becausevif late and I’m very tired so I apologize if some of my words have bad typos. Hopefully it’s clear enough you get my message. Thanks everyone and God bless you all❤❤ Period I was and “inactive Mormon” and it was terrible to not have god in my life. I will be able to enter into the temple for the first time in about 5 years. This artical is false and wrong. I want to be able to tell all of you the truth that I have witnessed in the church. I have a true testimony to know this is the true church. God loves each and everyone of you. I laughed at this pretty hard. Mormons don’t do polygamy anymore and I know this and I am not even mormon! The Mormon church or Latter day Saint church is not a cult like what the heck, they belive in God and they are definetly christians. I know a bunch of mormons and they are one of the nicest people I know. If you are curouis just go to their churchand look for your answers instead of looking at crap on the internet. Hear me out, other churchs are competing for you to go to their church (and infact other churches beside the mormon church get paid for the amount of people there) so if a mormon writes a web page about them they are going to make sure it is seen as good of course, but someone else from a different church is most likely going to protray it as bad as an effort for you to not go to the mormon church and to come to theres. So really don’t believe this web page it’s a bunch of crap and how would whoever wrote this know all of that information unless they themselves went to the church or used to be a member of their faith. It seems to me they made up lies and again I am not even mormon and I know this is lies haha I find it funny how they say we aren’t Christians but yet what is the name of our church? The church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. Some people really just like talking bad about us, but in reality we aren’t bad people. We care about our families and we care about other people. We may have some different beliefs but that doesn’t mean we aren’t Christian. This guy who wrote the article and the people who responded to this have us so mixed up. If they actually did research (not talking about reading anti Mormon stuff) or maybe actually talked to us then maybe they’d see we aren’t to be feared. Its so ignorant for this title to be called “Why were afraid of Mormons.” Just because these people came across one or two bad apples doesn’t mean the whole entire barrel is bad. I never say anything but when i see how people are towards a group of good people, its honestly upsetting. It’s hard for anyone outside of Mormonism to reconcile the belief system of a potential sitting president when some rather outlandish concepts regarding the past, the here and now, and the “latter-day” future of mankind are burned into that person’s spiritual and religious DNA. While the constitution precludes a religious litmus test, it doesn’t ban the informed voter from judging a candidate’s qualifications based on their core beliefs. Surveys have shown that an atheist candidate for U. S. president would never pass muster with the American voter. Is there some reason why an individual with a different, yet equally unacceptable idea about a god, or many gods, should not be scrutinized for unproven mysteries they choose to accept as a personal truth? Anyone who . . . believes the Garden of Eden and the beginning of mankind occurred in Independence, Missouri . . . believes Christ’s advance team will announce the looming 2nd coming at a Mormon temple and city in Missouri called New Jerusalem where prophets from all dispensations will gather with Mormon church leaders and members . . . believes going to the highest degree of heaven will require the practice of polygamy . . . believes god likely has multiple wives for the purpose of populating worlds without end . . . believes as man is god once was, as god is man may become . . . believes in order to go to heaven and be in god’s presence you must gain approval from Mormonism founder Joseph Smith . . . believes blacks are cursed by god with a dark skin for things they did in the pre-mortal life . . . believes American Indians are descendants of a Middle Eastern people and have a dark skin because god cursed them as explained in the Book of Mormon . . . believes a sixteen year old farm boy in Upstate New York was visited by God, Christ and angels, told all churches were of the anti-Christ, then later was told of a hidden box of golden plates which he translated into the ‘Book of Mormon’ some seven years later . . . believes those gold plates were later returned to an angel in a vast cave where an abundance of similar records were stored . . . believes 3 Nephites from the time of Christ as described in the Book of Mormon walk the earth today ministering to Mormons . . . believes God lives on a planet near the star Kolob with a human spokesman in Salt Lake City . . . believes special Masonic handshake rituals in the Mormon temple entitle that person to an exclusive pathway past the sentinels leading to heaven . . . doesn’t have my vote for President of the United States. By all means, go to mormon.org and lds.org to hear, see and read what they have to say about their new and improved 21st century organization. Then visit exmormon.org to get the rest of the many missing chapters to a rebranded Mormon storyline. Should we also go to “ex-Catholics” to learn about Catholocism, or “ex-Baptists” to learn about Baptists. That’s like going to State Farm to learn about Allstate. To learn what any organization teaches or represents, you have to go to the source – the organization itself. Anything else would only be heresay and biased, personal opinion. I certainly hope no one in America is shallow enough to base their vote for President of the U.S. on anything other than what that person will do as holder of that office of government. Please don’t tell me I should vote for someone because of where they think the Garden of Eden was, or other things mentioned in this comment. What on earth do these things have to do with what one’s future performance as President will be? While you are right to note that an “ex-Mormon” site is likely to be biased, it is also important to remember that we are ALL biased. Mormons are biased in favor of Mormonism, main-stream Protestants are biased in favor of main-stream Protestantism. Atheists are biased in favor of Atheism. It would be foolish for anyone to presume they are devoid of bias. However, since biased sources of information are all we have to work with, it is best to proceed by simply taking that bias into account and trying to collect the primary-source information. Furthermore, all organizations have unsavory elements (E.g. Church congregants who gossip behind your back, political fraud in the white house, mounting student debt for BU students, etc…), but those organizations are unlikely to tell you about the unsavory elements upfront because they want to present themselves positively. For example, to find out what Boston University is REALLY like, you should go to the BU website, but it might also be useful to go to “ex-BUstudent.org” or some website like that. Of course those students will be biased by heaps of student loans and a potentially daunting future, but that does not make their case illegitimate. We are all biased, so let’s just try to deal with information as honestly as we can while acknowledging our bias. I am a Mormon (cultural or middle-way), and I recommend mormonthink.com, it is a good subjective source. There are many different belief levels of Mormons. Obviously, most ex-mormons will have a negative bias, and most actively practicing Mormons will have a positive bias. Many Mormon fans of Mormonthink.com are viewed negatively by ex-Mormons and active Mormons. Bias is normal, but if your interest is understanding culture, you want to see it from the insider’s eyes first. It’s the standard prima facie argument: Give me a positive “This is why it should be this way” spin, then read the criticisms. The problem with what he states are also “smoke and mirrors’ covering truths. While I won’t stoop to the level of addressing each of the individual comments he made about the mormons I will say that perspective would change every single comment he made. For example David likes to breath heavily and thrust himself up and down upon children. Creeper right? But what if David is a life guard performing CPR on a child who is not breathing after nealry drowning? I think then you would be implying that Ken Dahl is crazy. Mormons are good at deflecting information they choose not to deal with. The truth is Mr. Dahl ‘s information was completely accurate. No one responding could argue that, so they choose to divert your attention to what he was associated with, hoping they could convince, the reader he was misinformed. The LDS church believes that they are the only true church on the planet, that arrogance is what upsets good folks that feel like they all have a place in god’s kingdom. So argue facts if you going to give Mr. Dahl a hard time you have no idea what it takes to be an ex-Mormon. It’s not entirely accurate. I’ll give it to him that much of it is correct, but not all. And the parts which are correct, however distasteful and absurd they may sound, really aren’t. People have just focused and persecuted the mormon church for so long they tend to forget they “absurd” things their’s or other churches do; all proclaiming they do it in the name of God. We’re all guilty, but maybe one of us is right. Just sayin. To reinforce what others have said: No, Ken Dahl’s comments are not all accurate. Where they are “accurate” is where they leave out crucial information so necessary for context. And where they are not accurate, well, those are just pernicious lies masquerading as accuracies. And all his comments are aimed at hurting the LDS church. There is only one standard to really judge the LDS church – go and visit one yourself! See the people, ask them questions, hear the range of answers, and be prepared to challenge yourself in your assumptions. You control the pace of the research, and if you do not like it or get uncomfortable, you can leave at anytime. But at least you will know much more than you ever will just by reading the opinion of others. Same goes for the Book of Mormon. Read it, pray about it – a spiritual exercise requires using spiritual processes to make it “fully real” and effective – and listen for the quiet answers that will come to you. Those answers may come as thoughts, words, or feelings, but when they do, you will recognize them for what they are: words from the Holy Ghost testifying of the truth of what you are reading. The LDS community asks nothing more of you. You should settle for nothing less. The belief system of an individual, however solid or absurd, speaks volumes about their character and value system. Someone who embraces the nonsense portion of Mormonism reveals their ability to believe in things which aren’t true, and are made up. Ken, all religions read like nonsense to unbelievers. You’ve picked one that’s not yours and have decided, according to your beliefs and biases, that it seems like nonsense. Is it reasonable to expect that in this life I’m a human, but in the last I was a lion and in the next I will be an insect (if I’m not careful)? Is it reasonable to believe that salvation depends on whether or not one consumes certain animals or combines certain food products? Is it reasonable to assume that in the Eucharist the elements literally become the body & blood of Jesus Christ? Religion is not “reasonable.” There’s always a disconnect between what others view as reality and what believers accept. “Faith” can only be fully understood by someone with a similar belief system. I’ve lived in the Middle East, and trust me, Muslims don’t think the American Judeo-Christian tradition “makes sense.” I wish half this country would have the opportunity to live in a nation where their religious tradition is the minority and see themselves from someone else’s perspective. Americans claim to respect others’ beliefs, but we discriminate against someone solely on their religion, and we are quick to call their sacred beliefs “nonsense.” Holly, that “arrogance” isn’t exclusively “Mormon.” Most religions believe they alone are the ultimate “solution” with the exception of a few. We are all “arrogant” according to our way of thinking. Christianity absolutely claims to be the only truth, to the exclusion of other religions. Calling another religion a “cult” seems to me to be rather arrogant. Even if not explicitly stated, most religions contain elements that they believe are necessary for salvation, which are not found in other religions — for example the Catholic Church’s literal Apostolic Succession. Ken, I think you forget…we are 14 million strong and growing fast. Mormons will not be stopped by someone with small, demeaning, innaccurate, ugly thoughts like yours. You really sound like you have personal problems and hate yourself. I hope you find more worthwhile things to do in your life. Trust me, people have been saying the same old crap you’re saying for over 100 years…and we are still a happy, prosperous, faith-motivated people. You think your snide remarks will change any of that? Even states have ordered our extermination…Hey! guess what?? We’re still here!! So Ken…in the end. Save yourself some study time by doing your homework instead of writing ignorant things on here. “I certainly hope no one in America is shallow enough to base their vote for President of the U.S. on anything other than what that person will do as holder of that office of government.” The majority of Americans are absolutely “shallow enough” to base their vote on many unrelated aspects of a candidate and religion is obviously one of the more common ones. Do you really think at this point in time that a Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, or anyone of any faith other than Christianity could be elected president of the US regardless of their qualifications? Yes, the US has a large number of Christians, so statistically candidates are more likely to be Christian, but we all know that’s not the only factor. At the same time, a person’s religion often says something about their beliefs and morals. Politicians always try to use their religion to gain an edge by showing they have ‘family values’ and belief in equality, justice, etc and it often seems to work. This seems obviously hypocritical to me when these same churches (not just LDS) campaign for the banning of gay marriage, for example. 80% to 90% of early volunteers who went door to door campaigning for CA’s prop 8 were Mormon and the Mormon Church contributed half of the $42 million raised in support of prop 8 (One article says they contributed $30 million). They also contributed $500k to campaign against gay marriage in Alaska and they worked to overturn a gay marriage bill in Maryland. I’m sure there are other examples. I’m fine with everyone having their own beliefs, but passing laws to ban gay marriage is clearly not advocating equality. I have the same problem with the Catholic Church or any church that spreads hate. The reason why my church got so involved is because prop 8 was a moral issue. We push for anything that betters the community morally. But what we do not get involved in is political parties. The reason why we are against gay marriage and gay acts in general is because we believe that marriage is a very sacred covenant towards god and the between the spouses. And should only be done between a man and a woman. We also believe in a pre-mortal life and when were spirits we had a gender already with us.Thus a man acting like woman or woman acting like man is wrong and is a mockery to god. I cannot over state how sacred marriage is to our religion. We do not hate gays we hate the sin not the person. For more information try this website. Mormon.org “To learn what any organization teaches or represents, you have to go to the source – the organization itself. Anything else would only be heresay and biased, personal opinion.” This would be true if the organization itself wanted to be identified as unique entity. In Mormonisms case they want to be viewed as “christian” when they are not so they work in shades of gray and deflect any non christian doctrine. Yes they are like a Chameleon changing colors based upon who they are talking to. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (please note the real name of the Mormon Church) were to present itself as Christian, and not actually be Christian, how many converts do you think would stay in the Church, after finding out they were duped into thinking the Church is Christian? I am a convert of many years, and I can guarantee any and all that this church is a Christian Church. If it were not, I simply would not be a member. “To learn what any organization teaches or represents, you have to go to the source” yeah because that’s always a credible source… Yes, you should absolutely talk to ex-catholics and ex-baptists. You’ll find a common thread of how ridiculous all their beliefs are. As for Mormons, they really take the cake – spend a whole day researching what they actually believe and then try to convince yourself that’s not a cult. Your distorted representation of the faith I believe appears designed to discount the merits of the individual without considering their actual position on a given issue. Such a practice is “ad hominmem” which is a logical fallacy that should be eschewed. You should know better. If you want to look at how ‘Mormonism” might impact a given political candidate, you will find loyalty, hard work, honesty, self sacrifice for a greater good, Christian values, love of country and a sense of duty to likely be a large part of their values. Specific beliefs aside, these “fruits” are not only worthy of any given candidate for public office, but should be valued far and above any specific religious opinion. On this basis, honest people from any political persuasion should be anxious to see a Mormon candidate from their party elected. Mormons are absolutely Christians. I don’t understand how people ever arrive at the assumption that they are not. A Christian, by definition, is someone who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ, believes that Christ is their Savior and the Redeemer of mankind. “Mormons” preach of Christ’s divinity and teach His gospel. They stand with conviction to declare the Jesus is the Christ and give a lot of attention to spreading His gospel throughout the world. Furthermore, they provide humanitarian efforts throughout the world that are unparalleled by other large service organizations and non-profits. Service is a central concept of the Mormon belief system that stems from Christs teachings. The church does nothing to hurt humanity or individuals. If you don’t agree with the teachings of the church, that is fine and completely acceptable, but seeking to belittle, cheapen, and misrepresent the Church by accusing them of not being Christians is not only wrong and unfounded, it is not Christian. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints… I’m pretty sure they’re Christian. Unless we’re defining Christians as people who don’t worship Jesus Christ and accept Him as their Savior and the only way to be saved; then in that case yes. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In other words, I am a Mormon. I have learned many things about Jesus Christ while attending meetings there, and one day after partaking the emblems of the Sacrament I wrote the following. I hope you like it, and that you and all others who read this will realize that Mormons are indeed Christians. SACRED ARE THE THINGS OF CHRIST Sacred are the things of Christ; so great the price he paid. Reverently I ponder how his life he freely gave. I promise that I won’t forget the sorrows that he bore. I promise to remember him; my Savior ever more. Sacred are the things of Christ; I eat the broken bread. I recall his body bruised; to the cross how he was led. I promise to forsake my sins; I plead forgiveness now. I feel my burdens lift from me; I make this holy vow. Sacred are the things of Christ; I take and drink the cup. In Gethsemane he bled; On the cross they raised him up. I take his name upon myself; I’ll strive and show my faith. He is my Covenant Father now; Oh, praise his saving grace. Justin, the Bible calls Jesus the Son of God. The Bible also says that all humans are children of God, and therefore heirs and jonit heirs with Christ. That makes Jesus and all humans brothers and sisters, unless you want to add or take away from the words of the Bible. Furthermore, many of the early Christian fathers wrote that God became man to teach man how to become god. You are right that most western Christian sects do not believe these things. That’s why a restoration was necessary. 1) The scripture that you share – Romans 8:17 has nothing to do with becoming “Gods” (capital G). I understand that as LDS you want to take pieces of scripture and twist them to fit Josephs theology. As Joseph stated in the King Follett discourse “as man is god once was and as god is man may be…” This is not Christian theology at all and is not a correct understanding of the passage if you study it. Romans 8:17 is Paul telling the Jews they were not part of gods new order (John 3:3) They had not been born again with regenerated eyes. To be part of this family you have to be in Christ, associated and identified with even His sufferings that you may share in His glory. We are joint heirs if we are born again. We will inherit the kingdom of heaven. His glory is everlasting life not “becoming a god” and populate your own world. I do not respond to belittle you. In fact I have a great amount of love for you and I want you to find freedom in a world without legalism. Don take my word for it. please study yourself there are a number of really good mormon resources that confirm what Mormonism is all about. I will name a few of your own. Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, Grant Palmer. You also mention that many of the early christian fathers wrote that god became a man to teach… You are correct it was called Arianism and it was abolished and swept off the face off the earth because it was a heresy. Last, you are telling me that god almighty could not preserve the words of his prophets and Jesus so he had to have a court documented occult treasure hunter lead a restoration that still has only 10 million members (4 million active). Please study and research your faith and its history. The Joseph Smith quote about God once being like us and we having the potential to become like him is being misused. God is perfected in his attributes and character. Jesus asks his disciples to be perfect like God is. And we know that, at the last day, because of Jesus’s atonement, those who are faithful, obedient, and deserving will become joint heirs with Jesus of all that God has to bestow upon us. Thus through Grace, we too will become perfect. BUT WE WILL NEVER CEASE TO WORSHIP GOD THE FATHER! We will be LIKE God the Father in that we will be perfected, living with him eternally, but we will not be equal to Him. Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. I come across this quite often and it really needs to be addressed. As someone who grew up Catholic (am now active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), I found the doctrines and history fascinating. Most people never really read through them, and when they did, they never understood them. The Catholic Church has published their own doctrines online. One you should take credence to is found on the vatican’s website (found here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM). This is the church’s catechism. Article 3, Paragraph 1, Section 1, verse 460 states: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” Your comment that “There is not any Christian sect that believes […] we will become gods as Jesus in heaven” shows that you have not studied the subject of religion fully. You are merely regurgitating misaligned thoughts and preconceived notions. In fact, if you’re a Christian, you would be doing yourself an disservice as your incorrect publication above is what Heavenly Father has called “preaching false witness”. Oh, and before you quickly jump to further incorrect interpretations of the above passage, you should already know scholars have peer reviewed the meaning behind this and have come to the conclusion that what is shown above is exactly what is interpreted. There is no hidden meaning. They have substantiated this claim because they also found philosophers and preachers from 30AD – 120AD (during and immediately after the death of Christ), who have shared this belief and have known for it to be true during that time period. There is a great amount of hatred on this thread. Most people want to throw another religion under the bus so their religion can be defended or so that their beliefs are not washed away. There are also those who are of no belief, who want to chime in. Opinions and questions are welcome, but name calling and bashing another’s religion will never produce the fruit necessary for mutual respect and understanding. Ask questions, listen to answers. If you don’t find your answer, ask someone else, until you finally reach a conclusion. Research all matters. For many on this message board, I leave you with wisdom from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – ” It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts” Ok Ken, so you listed a bunch of weird things Mormons believe. Now put any one of those against this one: “Around two-thousand years ago, a virgin was impregnated by, and then gave birth to, a supernatural being…and she TOTALLY didn’t make it all up so that she wouldn’t have to admit that she had extra-marital sex.” Or this: “There is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent old man in the sky who COULD end world hunger and bring about world peace, but instead of all that silliness, he’d rather watch me at all times to make sure I don’t masturbate or say bad words. He hates when I do that stuff!” Compare these standard mainstream Christian beliefs with any of the (alleged) Mormon beliefs on the list provided by Ken Dahl. I’m not trying to turn this around on Ken; my point is that EVERY religion contains beliefs that sound totally insane to someone who doesn’t believe them, and every president so far has been religious, therefore it is a fallacious argument that a Mormon would necessarily make a worse president than a mainstream Christian simply because Mormons believe some weird things. Romney would make a worse president than Obama for a whole list of reasons, but where he believes the Garden of Eden is located isn’t one of them. Justin, you have missed the entire point. You are not a Christian. You do not live the Christian gospel. You repeat something you heard your two-bit pastor say. Why don’t you try reading the bible? Given the quality of your posts you’ll probably have to use one of the worthless translations for nincompoops. I also might add that we are commanded to defend the faith. I have no anger with you or any other but will defend the faith. I am not sure what a two-bit pastor is, but please study the Bible and research any faith that takes away from the bible and you will see that they just dont hold any weight. The apostle Paul understood the importance of apologetics in his ministry to the Gentiles. Paul was not only ready to preach the gospel, but he was ready to defend the gospel as well (Phil. 1:17). In this context, Paul is in effect saying that he is ready to stand up for the true gospel amid some who were preaching Christ with selfish, insincere motives. Like Paul, it is incumbent on us as Christians to be ready, willing, and able to defend the true gospel of Christ albeit many have embraced a distorted gospel of Christ that cannot save (Gal.1:6-9) Mormons may not be orthodox Christian, or traditional Christian, or Protestant Christian, but you have no right to tell 14+ million people who worship Jesus Christ that they’re not Christian. Well, I guess you have a “right” but it’s pointless and divisive. What is at mormon.org is very basic. But what you are talking about is extremely sacred and you are ruining how sacred such things are but I will address them. Garden of Eden in Independence, Missouri Independence, Missouri is probably the least understood topics in my church. Prophets have even said that it is one of the least understood topics. Right here are some very deep stuff that most members do not understand. Temple complex at Independence Missouri: All god has done he has just specified place. Adam Ondi Ahmin is place that is kept ready at all times the missionaries that maintain this huge amounts of acreage report directly to the prophet. They are to keep it “in a state of readiness.” What is going to specifically happen there we mormon’s have no idea. Polygamy: Here is the short answer. We don’t practice it any more that is ancient history like the article said. Long answer Your sealed to your first wife when she dies and you fall in love and get remarried and you die. According to what you believe to be right the man would have to choose between to do. If that happened to me I would have a hard time choosing because I would probably love them both. But we do not pratice it on the earth today. Joseph Smith’s approval to go to heaven: False we believe we have to have gods approval. Blacks being cursed: No we do not believe that either. I do not know why blacks did not get the priesthood and other prophets before blacks got the priesthood did not understand either. It is just like in the bible with Jews being taught first then the gentiles. We do not know why the gentiles did not get the gospel only that they could not get the gospel. In fact Mormons when we were getting kicked out one of the main reason why we kicked out of Missouri was because we would unbalance the vote and support and abolitionist. We respect Native Americans to one of the earliest missions of the church was mission to the Native Americans and to this day they are still able to receive the priesthood as long as they live worthy for it. Joseph Smith was 16 when he received the first vision and Book of Mormon: No he was not 16 he was actually 14 when in Palmyra, New York he had the First Vision. I mean what boy would lie about what at the time sounded absurd. I mean if he wanted more followers he could have told them that the trinity showed up. Why would a man die for a lie ? Why would a man lead his pepole through some of the most horrible trials for a lie? Why would a man suffer such adversity for a lie? A liar would realize it is not worth the trouble and try to worm himself out of the situation. But Joseph Smith stood tall and took on the adversities he was given. One time some men burst into his room took him from his wife and children. Left the door open and killed one of his babies through exposure. He had hot tar painted all over him and feathers on him to further humiliate him. They also attempted to poison him when they tried to stuff it in his mouth he clenched his teeth and they broke the vial but no poison made it into his system. When he walked in his house his wife tried to remove the tar. But tar when it cools does not easily come off so while it came off it took painful chunks of flesh off of him. When morning came he walked outside and preached of Jesus recognizing the men who did this act to him in the audience. A liar would not do that. A liar would not have walked out and preached knowing he and his family would suffer. How could a man who barely knew how to form a sentence let alone a book produce a book that has way more writing styles than any book ever written? How could a man who could only write his name write a book that added more words to the English language than Shakespeare. How could a man who had the education of a 5th grader write a dual history of two distinct cultures that the world did not even know about. I mean if it is fake it is some pretty darn elaborate fiction way beyond the capacity of a 5th grader. How could a man who was alive at the time that medical science was so primitive that no one knew about germs and if you washed your hands after every patient you would be able to double their chances of living. Reveal a lifestyle which is now the suggested lifestyle by modern science. This man was not delusional or liar because a liar would have gave in a long time ago. Kolob is another one of those doctrines we really don’t know much about. All that we know is in the pearl of great price. It is like the Quantum physics and very advanced science except this is religous quantum physics. The Masonic handshake is a very sacred part of the Endowment. The Endowment is to give pepole knowledge of the past (i.e Premortal life, creation). The present (Gods plan for us). The future (Second coming). This stuff is so sacred that we do not mention this stuff outside the temple. It is not secret we urge every member to live worthy to receive a temple recommend and pull out their endowments. Godhood for Man: We believe that “As man is God once was. And as God is Man will become.” In the bible Jesus calls us children of God. Well children are usually heirs to everything their parents have so would it not make sense since we are children of god can’t we become a god. I mean does a lion cub turn into a zebra no it becomes into an adult lion. Prophets and Third Nephites: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) We believe there was an apostasy where divine inspiration was lifted from the earth. The Three Nephites were taken up because God wanted an apostasy for his children. Latter God decided it was time for prophets so thus came Joseph Smith. Either you are an ex-member who is trying to be Korihor like and trying to bring down the church if you are one of these people. Keep this quote in mind this quote. “Every time you kick Mormonism you kick it upstairs; You never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.” Brigham Young I have a dad that is just like you and I sure do feel sorry for him because he is in this stage to. Also keep in mind that it is never to late to come back and any ward would welcome you back like family. If you showed up in my ward me and my ward would. If your a person who does not fully understand what your talking about or you do not know where to find the truth and you keep on running into hateful ex Mormon sites. Try Mormon.org it rocks any questions can be answered by missionaries. Jonathan, I suspect you will one day better understand your religion. Many of your comments hold errors. For starters Joseph Smith, in his own words, says he was 16 years old when this supposed visitation occurred. Perhaps you and others should brush up on early Mormon history: The Joseph Smith Papers would be a good place to start: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letterbook-1-1832–1835#7 The Secretary of State archives for Missouri (Mormon War Papers 1827-1841) holds hundreds of documents regarding the ouster of Mormons from Missouri. Nowhere in the deliberations of the state assembly, field military or governor’s office does the issue of slavery ever come up. Mormons were breaking the law, not honoring their agreement with the state and harboring fugitives. That is why they were expelled from Missouri. The Mormon church has put lipstick on a pig with their sanitized and rewritten history. http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/findingaids/rg005-01.asp Just know. I’ve read through all these comments. Some are good and true. Some, however, are evil and filled with lies. There are quite a few people who think that to get both sides of the story they should go to Exmormon sites. Don’t people realize that even if there are a couple of true facts there it is hidden in bias and lies. Heck even some of the things are hidden in lies. I’ll name one truth hidden in lies as an example. The Mountain Meadow Massacre. Everyone knows about this. However most of the reads I’ve seen depict it as the top leadership organizing it or even that everyone was brutally murdered. One it was not organized by the top leadership and two not everyone was killed or so to say brutally murdered. It was actually caused by this said group passing through one of the Mormon towns in Utah. They were so pissed with the mormons that they said when they made it to California they would bring back an army to make them trade and stuff like that. This angered a group there whose leader was actually one of Brigham Young’s sons. Out of sheer stupidity they decided not only to believe the threat but didn’t even talk it over with the church leadership there and went and committed the Mountain Meadow Massacre. They didn’t kill everyone however. Unlike the savages in Missouri they didn’t use the kids under 7 as shooting sport. They spared them and eventually returned them to their families. Brigham Young’s son was hung for what he did and the other leader was excommunicated and exiled from the church. This is just one of many examples I can choose from. And even though this is actually the true account of what happened I bet there will still be people who see this and will disagree with me. Well I’ll end with this. If you are atheist and you post the evil stuff on here I don’t care and I respect that you would actually take time out of your day to learn the worst lies possible about Mormonism. But if you are a religious person who writes the evil lies on this and other articles I only have one thing to say for you. “May God find the deepest pit in hell to put you in with LUCIFER so no good soul will ever see or hear your lies ever again.” Stop trying to say that I and others don’t believe in Jesus. Stop trying to say we’re not Christian. For every time you do you get that much closer to sring Satan rather then Jesus. As Ken Dahl noted in his comments, traditionally, Mormons excluded Black people because they were considered descendants of Ham and cursed with dark skin. In more recent times, Mormons, perhaps to increase their membership, began reaching out and recruiting Black people. Most African Americans remain uncomfortable with this history. I thought the article was very good and a significant contribution even though this concern was omitted. I was always told that it’s better to get info straight from the horse’s mouth rather than from a horse’s as…uh…other end. Going to exmormon.org is doing the latter. It’d be like someone going to an ex Southern Baptist group that focuses only on the SBC’s founding being based on supporting slavery and how Southern Baptists are all racists (despite the new SBC head being a Black pastor). Is this depiction fair? No. I gave some accurate info but that a lot of misleading info as well. this is what professional anti-Mormons do. The mix in false ino with some truth and those without knowledge of true LDS doctrine and practice are deceived. Ignorance, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are the antis’ tools of the trade which they use. They lie in wait to deceive (Eph. 4:14). I like your post Ken. I see where everyone is coming from who has replied to your post. So now I am going to give my opinion. I do not vote for a politician based on their religion preference, I vote for what they stand for in helping this country. I do not like Obama, never have and never will. I think this man has led America in to the depths of hell and if he is re-elected will just continue that journey. I am a conservative Christian and I really don’t care that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. I feel he is the better candidate for presidency. We have had Christian presidents in our history and I am pretty sure not every American voting for them were thrilled about that, but they probably voted for that person because of the stand that person took for America; and that is what is important. I wish people would quit focusing on a candidates religion and the negative media the opposite candidate puts out there on them. I want to know what a candidate is going to do to help this country, especially now. People! Read and Learn what The Mormon religion is all about! Before you all making any remarks about it….what all has being said! the differencies is! merely opinionize of all who know nothing!…Thank You….. Thank you for this remarkably perceptive analysis. The basis for prejudice against Mormons is ignorance. Most people regard the Mormons as a blank slate on which they project their favorite fears about religious minorities. Liberals think that any dedicated religioys believers are mindless robots. Conservative Evangelicals think Mormons are faux Christians conducting a vast conspiracy to drag real Christians to hell. Neither group gives Mormons credit for individual intelligence or moral reflection, and assume Mormon animosity toward themselves. The fact that Mormons are a bit betterneducated than average, that they are overrepresented in academia, that Mormons with more education tend to be even more loyal to their religion, that Mormons have a more positive view toward people of other faiths–that is, are less religioysly prejudiced–than any other denomination, are simple facts of which their critics are totally ignorant. The criticsnat both extremes of the religioys spectrum only know one or two things about Mormons, and then extrapolate an entire bogeyman out of that. The most severe anti-Mormons at both ends are willing to invest vast amounts of time and rhetoric attacking Mormonism, but very little actually learning how Mormons themselves think. Their shared rationale is, this one thing I know about Mormons is so hateful to me, I do not want to waste any of my time gaining a sympathetic understanding of them. And the bottom line at both extremes is the determination to obliterate Mormons and their beliefs from society, to deny them the opportunity to participate in discussions about religion or public polucy in any forum controlled by the critics, and thus create a vicioys circle of prejudice reinforcing ignorance, which feeds prejudice. I know very little about Mormonism but if people are discussing their beliefs and practices and how they have or have not evolved over time we would be remiss not to mention one of their recent practices that has lately emerged, namely that the Mormons have been obtaining lists of deceased Jews and posthumously baptising them. When refering to “one of their recent practices,” it might be best to check your facts. Specifically, the practice has been discouraged, condemned, and can even lead to negative consequences for the members involved. “But in 1995, after evidence emerged that at least 380,000 names of Jewish Holocaust victims were on baptismal lists in the church’s extensive archives in Salt Lake City, the church agreed to end vicarious baptism without consent from the descendants of the dead. Church officials also said the church would remove the names of Holocaust victims placed on the lists before 1995. ”For the last seven years, we’ve had entirely cordial relations with the Mormons,” said Ernest Michel, who negotiated the agreement on behalf of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, which is based in New York and claims 180,000 members. ”But the agreement is clear and they have not held up their end.” Last year, Helen Radkey, an independent researcher in Salt Lake City, gave Mr. Michel evidence that the Mormon lists still included the names of at least 20,000 Jews, many of them Holocaust victims and prominent figures like the philosopher Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel. Ms. Radkey also provided Mr. Michel with evidence that many of these Jews had been baptized after the 1995 agreement. But Mormon officials say they remain in full compliance with the 1995 agreement.” An excerpt from a New York Times article in 2003 –http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/nyregion/again-jews-fault-mormons-over-posthumous-baptisms.html Ken, this is the first thing I thought of after reading this article. I have seen part of one episode of Big Love and I’ve never even heard of the other TV show. I am not basing my opinions off shows or movies, I’m basing it off articles I’ve read. Regardless of the official policy, it seems to have still gone on after the 1995 agreement. Seems like Ken did check his facts Carl. In terms of history and religion, 17 years ago would still be recent. Are we supposed to discount an event just because it happened 15, 20, or 50 years ago? It still reflects on the organization. “Some Jewish genealogists agree with the Mormon interpretation of the agreement. ”I have a copy of the agreement,” said Gary Mokotoff, the publisher of Avotaynu, the International Review of Jewish Genealogy. ”The wording is vague in some places, but it definitely does not obligate the Mormons to scour their own archives on an ongoing basis.”” Also: “”We have actually gone above and beyond,” said D. Todd Christofferson, a church official involved with the negotiations. The church removed the names of Holocaust victims listed before 1995 and continues to instruct its members to avoid baptizing Jews who are not directly related to living Mormons or whose immediate family has not given written consent, Mr. Christofferson said.” There appears to be some disagreement on the interpretation of the agreement between the Mormons and the Jews. Perhaps an additional agreement is needed to clarify. One thing, however, is clear. I have heard numerous statements read from the pulpit and in various other meetings for many years (likely 1996+, but perhaps starting before that) that have clearly instructed members of the church to not submit such names. The church does not condone such actions and can (and does) revoke database rights from those who violate the policies. Should the church do more to prevent it? Probably yes. There could be some form of filter that detects prohibitted names and (at a minimum) flags them for review before they are allowed to proceed. I don’t think this would be overly difficult, but I’m not the one who would have to implement it. Is the church obligated to do such? There is no honest way I could say yes or no, but it appears to me that the answer is no. A clarifying agreement would be needed to make it certain one way or the other. As a member, I would not be against the idea of a filter (like I described). The Mormon practice of proxy ordinances for deceased individuals is keeping with their desire and value to see all of humanity receive every blessing God has in store for them. As opposed to virtually every other religion in the world that condemns those who don’t believe like them to some eternal punishment, and even so with a sense of self aggrandizing glee over their own supposed good fortune, Mormons sacrifice greatly to give EVERYONE who has ever lived the chance to get exactly what they believe they themselves might receive from God. They are not closing doors on the past identities of those they do proxy work for, they open the door of opportunity to others. It is a selfless kindness that is unbelievably being used as a political pawn of contention to drive a wedge where none should exist. If anyone from any religion wants to go out of their way to perform some rite on my behalf so that I can get access to all that God has for me, I would never complain! I would consider the kindness and say “thank you!” Obviously a joke, but John you’re trying to tell me that Mormons would not be offended by http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com? Now consider that Mormon’s baptizing dead people is not a joke and tell me that you honestly don’t think baptizing Holocaust victims is not offensive to Jews. They have their own religion, they don’t want you to do them a “favor”. People always think that just because they believe something they’re doing everyone else a favor by forcing those beliefs on them. Certainly, there are plenty of Mormons who would take offense at that, but I don’t think it would be as many as some might think. Even if that website were sincere, I think most Mormons would feel that it could have no impact on them. There are several reasons for this: 1. Authority: Most people (Mormons or not) would question the authority of those behind the site to do such a “conversion” on anyone’s behalf. Likewise, many question the Mormon authority to perform any baptisms on another’s behalf. 2. Power: Again, most people would contend that they have no power to actually cause a change even if they somehow had the authority. The power behind Mormon baptisms is also questioned. 3. Agency: Even with both authority and power, Mormons believe strongly in agency (i.e., that they are free to choose for themselves and then reap the rewards or punishments that come from their choices). This could mean that some would actually choose to “convert,” but that others would likely choose not to. The same idea applies to Mormon proxy baptisms. The same three ideas apply to any group attempting to postumously convert any other group. If you don’t believe in the power or authority of those performing the work on your behalf, then it makes little difference what they do. If they are trying to help you reach heaven or send you to a significantly hotter place, it will make no difference. However, even with all of that, it is best to be considerate toward others’ feelings and try to work out ways that accomplish the goals of the organization doing the work while minimizing any offenses or hard feelings. This is one reason why the church has any agreement at all with any Jews. If you think about it, the church is under no legal or other obligations to care about offending anyone. If they wanted to, they could simply continue without caring what anyone else thinks of them. However, they work out agreements like the one in 1996 instead. It seems to me that they don’t desire to offend and are trying to be good neighbors. John and Carl- first of all Carl whether the Mormon church has followed its agreement with Jewish organizations is bad enough–the point is that they baptized deceased jews (who of course could not defend themselves) and they baptized Holocaust jewish victims who were destroyed for being jewish, many of whom enjoyed and believed in their religion and culture and you would imagine after suffering horrible atrocities for their identities and beliefs and paying the ultimate price for them, do not want to be listed in some Mormon genealogy as baptized Mormons. The point is that as recently as 1995 jewish organizations had to point out to the Mormon church that this practice was wrong and offensive otherwise they never would have got it or stopped it or even thought about it. I have to agree with Carl about this topic. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has no legal obligation to change its policies about baptism for the dead but do so out of respect and at the request of those who feel their rights of religion are being imposed upon. There are two practices of the church that should be made aware to those who are having a problem with baptisms for the dead. 1. Before a baptism for the dead is to be submitted. A deceased person is supposed to have been deceased for more than 90 years, or the submitter should get permission from kin before a baptism is submitted. 2. The Church practices a policy that it teaches the members the rules that they should follow and then let the people mostly govern themselves. This means that rule 1 is in place, members of the church have been told about it, and should follow it. How ever the church does not have the resources to double/triple check every submission for Temple work and thus relies on its members to be honest. So I think we need to clear something up here. Baptisms for the dead are indeed a service, and a service that is not considered by anyone to be binding upon an unwilling individual. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that baptisms for the dead, just like baptisms of the living, are only of force when the individual in question accepts the ordinance. They are not “listed in some Mormon genealogy as baptized Mormons” nor are they counted on some membership list. The record that is kept simply shows that their work has been done. We as a people have a very great respect for the Jews as a people, and indeed we believe that in a way they are part of God’s chosen people. And regarding the question of “whether the Mormon church has followed its agreement with Jewish organizations” – everything they have done to accommodate the wishes of these organizations is purely out of deference to them, and not out of any obligation or line that we’ve overstepped. That is, as a church. The church is made of individuals. And the individuals conduct the work of temple ordinances, including baptism for the dead, on a very personal basis. So it’s up to individuals, who make mistakes, and who are not always thorough or completely obedient, to accomodate the wishes of a very large group of people who pop up in geneaologies all over the planet. I say again that we as a Church have done nothing wrong. It’s quite refreshing, Ken, to hear that a religious group (id est Mormons) allows the ‘nonbelievers’ in this life to have a chance at heaven through proxy baptism. Consider the fact that automatically assigning nonbelievers to hell after this life (with no reprieve) has been the general Christian, Islamic, Jewish, etc, tradition for millennia. Are we okay with other religions’ declaring our damnation because time has made this approach acceptable? I, for one, would rather have all religions give me the benefit of the doubt after I’m dead, similar to the Mormons. Given the reasoned analysis of modern mormonism given by Dr. Hutchison-Jones, the opening tone of the article is puzzling. Opening with a flippent remark about Mormon cultural practices is pretty much an ethnic slur. The sentence “And even though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy in the 1890s (with the exception of a militant sliver)” also betrays ignorance that is puzzling given that Dr. Hutchison-Jones specifically refutes that very ignorance. Any practicing Mormon who embraces polygamy is excommunicated. Those polygamists occasionally mentioned in the news are not Mormons… they do not belong to the “LDS Church” to which Mitt Romney and other prominent Mormons belong. These polygamists belong to an entirely separate religion that is generally disliked by LDS. Even a simple google search could have easily revealed this fact. The FLDS call themselves “Mormons”. In fact, they would say they’re the “true” Mormons. Sound familiar? Just like mainstream LDS want to be called Christians (while others object), you have no right to define others religious identification. Of course a religion has a right to define who it’s members are or aren’t. Are you saying that Jews do not have the right to say if someone else is a Jew or not – even if they truly aren’t? That Catholics cannot say that someone who calls himself catholic but who in actuality is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, is not catholic? Your comment is nonsensical. Steve, people can convert to Judaism. David’s point is that if some group of people with radical ideas goes around saying they represent Judaism that doesn’t make them Jews. It might cause other people to be misinformed about what Jews do and don’t believe. This is especially true in an organization like the Catholic Church which has so much structure. You can’t just form your own church and say it’s part of the Catholic Church even if those practices were once held by the Catholic Church in the past. Your statements about Mormon polygamy are misleading. It is true that polygamy is not allowed to be practiced by living Mormons, but it is very much still a believed practice (my fellow Mormons who attend the temple and have had a spouse die can confirm), and polygamy is still included in official Mormon doctrine (Doctrine and Covenants section 132). I think both Mormons and non Mormons should look at why Polygamy was started. Joesph Smith (the Mormon Profit) practice polygamy and took on wives at the age of 15 and while his friends were away he would tell their wives God wants you to marry me. Joesph Smith was a horn dog. That is why polygamy is in the Mormon church to begin with. That’s a very adolescent comment, Alec. The practice didn’t begin until at least the 1830’s. Joseph would have been in his late 20’s-early 30’s by then, and the practice wasn’t instituted just for the sake of having sex; it was a way of building up church generations quickly in a hostile environment. It was also a means of providing for those women at a time when marriage was a highly valued institution in our society. It is commonly overlooked that best estimates have only attributed the practice to ~10% of the membership of the church during the period it was permitted, and those men were some of the most well-off in the church. Proof again, that racism is not the problem it used to be, rather religious intolerance is still the number one issue as it has always been. After all, our country was founded because of religious intolerance. Really? REALLY?? Maybe in some parts of the country, and maybe in small circumstances, but I BEG to differ. This country has come a long way–look at Powell and Sec. Rice. I’m not a believe in affirmative actions (it is, truly, a race based policy). Blacks & minorities have been able to enjoy the advantage of affirmative action in college admissions. Soon, whites will be the minority and Hispanics the majority…will whites be given an advantage in college admissions? Shouldn’t they by default? How will this be perceived?? Jackson, are you trying to start an argument? Yes, you guys are right that racism obviously isn’t as bad as it used to be and yes, it has come a long way. But Kathy is right that it still exists. I think especially in a city like Boston you might not see it as much as other cities or parts of the country. “Soon, whites will be the minority and Hispanics the majority…”. This is really the statement that makes me think you can’t be serious haha. According to Wikipedia, 16.3% of Americans identify as Hispanic or Latino with 8.7% (more than half) identified as white Hispanic. 73.4% identify as white with 63.7% non-Hispanic white. So how soon exactly is this happening? “Blacks & minorities have been able to enjoy the advantage of affirmative action in college admissions.” Affirmative action isn’t just about being a minority. Asian Americans make up 4.8% of the population, but I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as Asian American affirmative action. The reason is because if you look at average education levels and household incomes they are higher for whites and Asians Americans than for Latinos and African Americans. This is obviously way off topic from the article. Racism isn’t as bad in Boston? Wrong. It’s worse. I’m from Atlanta and Boston is the most racist place I’ve ever been, thanks mostly to BU students. Other minorities at BU will say the same. White people, racist or not, don’t get to decide that the world isn’t racist or “as racist” anymore. Only those who are on the receiving end of racism get to decide that. Not off topic; KathyBates brought up racism after all. Distill affirmative action down to it’s essence and what is it? A race base policy. It’s racial. You could even say it’s racist! It’s admitting one applicant over another based on…RACE! Go beyond wikipedia, which is not a great source anyways. The birthrate of minorities has surpassed those of whites. And by 2040 Hispanics (or Hispanic whites, if you wish) are expected to surpass non-Hispanic whites in the population. Interesting article.. it’s true what she said about religious Christians being portrayed as villains in TV shows and films. To be honest, most religious figures in TV and film on the major American networks seem to be portrayed as corrupt or evil unless they’re an evangelical priest or a rabbi. “No one has been more aggressive about prosecuting polygamists in this country in the 20th and 21st century than Mormons.” And that’s one of the most scary things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: that they got rid of a tenet of their beliefs in order to achieve statehood for Utah, and, having done so, use the law to persecute others who engage in non-monogamous relationships. As a Witch, I’d be *much* more comfortable with them if they were to try to change the law to restore freedom of religion in this Nation, starting with their origins. Instead, they persecute those who believe what they once believed themselves; in Biblical terms they are like Esau in the 25th chapter of Genesis; but they bought into American citizenship that way – and are as immoral as Jacob in denying basic life or liberty without payment. The statement that “Mormons prosecute polygamists” is partially true but misleading. They excommunicate practicing polygamists. I am unaware of them actively seeking out polygamists, but it is considered a punishable offense within the modern church. As long as an excommunicated member is willing to make the necessary changes to their behavior, yes, they may be welcomed back into the church, often with full fellowship. A man who I was once acquainted with had been excommunicated, but looked forward to the day when he could return to the church. I lost contact with him years ago, but it is my hope that he was able to satisfy this desire. John, I appreciate your comment more than most. I am a Mormon, happy and unashamed. Two of my best friends are Wiccans. They are some of the brightest people I have ever known but just as your comment illustrates, there are many who make judgments about my faith because they simply do not know any better. Please allow me to edify you on the historical issue of polygamy as it relates to the Mormon faith. Polygamy was instituted in a time of dire need. As Mormons trekked west into the wild territories of the US in the 1830’s there was–quite simply–a shortage of able-bodied males to care for women and children. Many families had lost their fathers, husbands and older brothers to any of thousands of uncontrolled factors. The Mormon leadership instituted the practice of polygamy as a means of assigning responsibility for the well-being of these families to men who remained alive. They were tasked with leading and providing for people who were not originally theirs to care for. In this way, the leadership of the Mormon caravans assured that no individual was abandoned to the idea that: “they are not my problem, I have my own family to provide for.” Now that these people were a part of the patriarch’s family there was no question they were the patriarch’s responsibility to care and provide for. We often think of the benefits of polygamy as being without cost, and so immoral, but fail to consider the enormous cost and responsibility that gave rise to this practice among Mormons, so long ago. When Mormons finally arrived and settled the Salt Lake Valley in Utah, the practice was continued for only about one or two generations before it was terminated. You are correct that one of many reasons for the discontinuation of the practice was that it was not generally approved of by the leaders of the US; and the Mormon leadership of the Utah territory wanted to be incorporated into the US. However, make no mistake that it was not the primary reason for the cessation of polygamy. Mormons were finally settled. The population balance of male-to-female was being restored. Therefore, polygamy was no longer necessary. This is the reason that the Mormon Church condemns the practices of the FLDS and other splinter groups that continue in polygamy: it doesn’t work when the balance of male-to-female is roughly even. You have to eliminate the excess number of males in order to assign multiple females to one male. This creates an extreme abuse that anyone can see as wrong. In a way, we Mormons can be grateful for the FLDS’ continued practice of polygamy because it illustrates how polygamy ceases to be a viable practice beyond the date in 1890 when Mormon leadership closed the practice. I once questioned the issue of polygamy, like you and many others. I was raised in the Mormon faith to always question and search for answers because my belief was always my responsibility and no other’s. After much study, I discovered that my historical perspective of the practice of polygamy is much clarified. It was never an issue of Core Mormon Belief to utilize polygamy; but a practice that had specific purpose based on the needs of the time and place in which it was utilized. After the need had passed, the practice was correctly closed. Those who use the practice beyond the need succeed only in abusing the practice for their own selfish benefit. To your post I would add the following: Plural marriage goes back to Old Testament times, when Abraham, Jacob, David and Moses where commanded by God to have more than one wife that God might raise up a people unto himself. The doctrine that made it ok then is the same doctrine that made it ok for a short time when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was first being established. That doctrine is laid out in the Book of Mormon. Jacob 2:27-30 reads as follows: 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. As you can see, verse 30 explains that under certain circumstances the Lord has commanded plural marriage and gives his reason for doing so. If polygamy was a legal and accepted practice today, the LDS would be practicing it. The simple reason the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism abandoned the practice was to get church assets back from the U. S. government. With church assets seized by the government and the corporate entity dissolved, there was no church. Google “the Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs. United States” to gain some insight. Today’s Salt Lake City Mormon church is not the same legal entity of the founding organization, thus church assets are now held by the Presiding Bishopric. The Salt Lake City church has no claim to the title, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” other than the copyrighted typeface and logo used on stationery and building signage. Bet you didn’t know that! The second reason for the timely “revelation” to cease the practice of Polygamy was a settled negotation with Washington to allow Utah’s statehood. You said “If polygamy was a legal and accepted practice today, the LDS would be practicing it”. I doubt that your assumption is right because of the doctrine spelled out in my post above. The main reason for plural marriage being done away with was that the Lord had accomplished his purpose, and had raised up a people in these latter days to preach the everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. See Revelations 14:6-7. Please note when you read this scripture that there would be no need for God to send this angel to preach the everlasting gospel to those who dwell on the earth if the gospel was still on the earth in its purity. The real reason Brother French is that Joseph got caught and thus got lynched for committing polygamy and polyandry. Don’t believe me? visit http://www.mormonstories.com – this is a site of faithful believing Mormons who want to know the truth about the history of their church. They have several podcasts on the subject. I can respect these believers because they know what they believe on don’t try to act Christian because they know they are not. In addition, the lord didn’t have any purpose in polygamy. Joe and his sexual appetite for new partners creating a convenient revelation. Just like everything else he “spoke for the lord” when it pleased him. He is no different than David Koresh, Muhammad or Charles Taft Russell I don’t know you or what you have been taught but you need to research and the redact the following statement because it is flat our wrong and if you know this already then it is a damn lie “Please allow me to edify you on the historical issue of polygamy as it relates to the Mormon faith. Polygamy was instituted in a time of dire need. As Mormons trekked west into the wild territories of the US in the 1830′s there was–quite simply–a shortage of able-bodied males to care for women and children. Many families had lost their fathers, husbands and older brothers to any of thousands of uncontrolled factors.” – Polygamy was practiced by Joseph for years before giving the revelation – Polygamy was “the new and everlasting covenant” which meant if you didn’t practice it you couldn’t go to be with god to be a god in heaven. -Polygamy was still practiced by the church and Brigham Young well after it was renounced. Anyone who has attended our Gospel Doctrine classes and studied the revelations that Jesus Christ has given to the Church in these latter days should know that the New and Everlasting Covenant applies first and foremost to the covenant of marriage between a man, and a women. Naturally, that would include plural marriages authorized by God but would not be limited to those marriages. Perhaps the following information will help you to become more familiar with our doctrine. Plural marriage goes back to Old Testament times, when Abraham, Jacob, etc., etc. where commanded by God to have more than one wife that God might raise up a people unto himself. The doctrine that made it ok then is the same doctrine that made it ok for a short time when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was first being established. That doctrine is laid out in the Book of Mormon. Jacob 2:27-30 reads as follows: 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. As you can see, this doctrine is very clear, and verse 30 explains that under certain circumstances the Lord has commanded plural marriage and gives his reason for doing so. Please show me the text in the OT that states god commanded old testament prophets to participate in Polygamy. Yes some had multiple wives in the OT but it was not part of the law which one had to follow in the OT to be saved (I also don’t see any being blessed for having multiple wives). Joseph took polygamy and turned it into a commandment from the lord that one had to follow to be saved. That is the major difference. Also you are supporting your argument with the BOM! Please support it with biblical passages not your own doctrine. Last, I have re-read my comments on here and I want to say that I share my research and hope with you in love. I have not hate towards you or any LDS. I would recommend reading a book by one of your own. A temple going faithful latter day saint named Todd Compton. His book “In Sacred Loneliness” does a much better job than I do explaining Joseph and polygamy. As I see it you are only using a portion of the scriptures (the Bible) and therefore your situation is like a Jury that has reached a verdict without hearing the defense witnesses (latter-day scriptures). In other words, the only reason you disagree with me is that you don’t know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and that it is truly Another Testament of Jesus Christ. To get that witness directly from God a person must seek to know the truth in the way that God has prescribed. It is my opinion that to switch from being a detractor of the Church to being a believer is very difficult. It requires a lot more effort on their part than someone who has not first staked out such a position. However, over the years I have heard many members say that they did succeed in doing so. The following is how I personally think it must be approached. First and foremost a person must have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ or at least be willing to do those things that will develop that faith. See James 1:5-7. Second, a person must read and ponder the Book of Mormon, giving special attention to those chapters and verses concerning the atonement of Christ. See the list below. Third, he must ponder and be willing to apply the principles of the gospel as taught by the BOM into his life. See John 7:16-17. Fourth, he must pray earnestly and fervently several times a day for guidance. Five, he must attend all our church meetings each and every Sunday to observe and understand how we apply the teachings of Jesus Christ into our lives. Six, he must repent of his sins. Seven, he must be ready and willing to join the Church when he receives his witness from God that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. By doing these things he will show the Lord that he has a sincere heart and real intent. It is similar to listen to the radio. There are certain steps that must first be taken. A person must plug it in, turn it on, dial in the station, turn up the volume, and IF he hasn’t left out any of the steps and there is no interference he will get the message. I recommend this approach because it is exactly what my wife and I did, and we both received the promised witness from the Holy Ghost. In addition, during the forty years or so that I have spent in missionary work for the Church I have never once seen this approach fail. See Matt 7:7, Moroni 10:4-5. Here are some scriptures from The Book of Mormon concerning Jesus Christ and his atonement. 2 Nephi 2 – Lehi testifies of the Savior as our Redeemer. 2 Nephi 9 – Jacob testifies of the Atonement. 2 Nephi 31–33 – Nephi teaches the doctrine of Christ. Enos – Enos experiences the power of the Atonement. Mosiah 2–5 – King Benjamin teaches of Christ. Mosiah 12–16 – Abinadi gives his life in testifying of Jesus Christ. Alma 5, 7 – Alma testifies of the Savior. Alma 17–22 – Lamanites receive the testimony of Jesus Christ. Alma 34 – Amulek testifies of the Atonement. Alma 36 – Alma experiences the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Alma 40–42 – Alma testifies of the resurrection and Atonement. Helaman 5 – Nephi and Lehi are instruments in God’s hands to witness of the Savior. 3 Nephi 9–10 – The Savior invites people to come to Him. 3 Nephi 11–18 – The Savior teaches the Nephites of the Father and of His doctrine. 3 Nephi 27 – The Savior teaches His gospel. Ether 3 – The brother of Jared sees the Savior. Ether 12 – Ether and Moroni testify of the Savior and the power of His Atonement. Moroni 7–8 – Mormon teaches of the pure love of Christ and His Atonement. Moroni 10 – Moroni invites all to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. I will disagree with Hutchinson-Jones, most likely being a liberal from Harvard, the negative perception of a conservative is to be expected, “Conservative voters might be a little less enthusiastic about getting out the vote because they’re nervous that he’s a Mormon” History has shown us that despite Irish Catholic, JFK broke through the religious-political hegemony that existed before his time winning the presidency. Barack O. did it in terms of the racial barriers being the first Black president as no other before his time. Only two examples needed which tells us that American voters find a way to present new opportunities for new leaders and is always pioneering the “first of something” to be elected; if anything it presents an aura of mystery and intrigue which is not necessarily divisive, perhaps the contrary specially considering the lack of leadership we find ourselves in now-a-days. I can guarantee that when it comes time to get this current president out, conservatives all around will bound together in unison. Being Mormon will not affect Mitt Romney, specially if he has the backing of ministers and other important political figures, which he will! Mitt has already exceed B.O. in fund raising, not to mention has the backing of some important figures in battle states of Ohio, FL and others. If recent gubernatorial and house elections are any indication of what is to come and I mean any sign of the political shift in this country, get ready for some real change you will be able to count on! One only has to look at local elections. Martha Coakley/Scott Brown race ring a bell anyone? I can’t wait until all the promises of B.O., or should I say broken promises are exposed (here’s one: raising taxes) by Mitt and they go head to head, it will be epic, or see the likes of Marco Rubio/ Allen West up against Biden. ROMNEY 2012 all the way! I don’t know if the statement in brackets came from Barlow or Hutchinson-Jones but it is statements like this that perpetuate the myth that Mormons are polygamous. Even in this context, trying to explain that Mormons do not practice polygamy, it is mis-stated that these shows are about “polygamous Mormons” The characters/participants in these shows are not Mormons, and major story lines ine the shows revolve around the conflicts between themselves and Mormons. Most members of polygamous groups, whether in Utah or not, have never been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To be an “apostate Mormon”, you have to have been and still be a Mormon. Mormons are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If a polygamous person is not nor has been a member of the LDS church, then they can not be an apostate LDS or “apostate Mormon.” In reality, those that still practice polygamy would denounce the modern LDS church as being the true church. The “Mormon” church is the apostate church, leaving behind some of the early beliefs of the founding leaders. “Most members of polygamous groups, whether in Utah or not, have never been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” This is not entirely true. Although they may not have been baptized into the modern organization, they follow almost all of the same beliefs and use the same set of set of scriptures. The biggest PR problem Mormons have is that they stay in Utah and the West. In the rest of the country, it is much less likely that people are acquainted with someone who is Mormon. Research shows that people who know individual Mormons have a much more favorable opinion of Mormons than those who don’t.There is also that competition thing–apparently Baptists and Evangelicals are mad when members of their church leave to become Mormons. This has given rise to some of the most inaccurate, un-Christian, crazy anti-Mormon propaganda. The goal of such drivel seems to be to keep people as far away from Mormons as possible. I guess because once people actually visit a Mormon church or meet actual Mormon families, they see it’s not that weird or crazy. I think “Christian” churches are really shooting themselves in the foot when the perpetrate lies and try to stir up prejudice. Sooner or later, when people figure out their church, however well-meaning, was lying to them about what Mormons believe, they start to wonder what else their church was lying to them about. Interesting article, but did it really have to begin by talking about underwear? Cristine Hutchison-Jones seems to be very well informed about Mormons, but the poor journalist illustrates the problems of how hard it is for normal people to sort out the misinformation they learn for popular media. I do appreciate the good intentions and respectful tone of the article. Somewhere along the line some fundamentalist Christians determined to try to undermine The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or, “Mormon” church) by asserting that they were not Christians. Perhaps it will help to set that record straight. • The name of the church bears His name. • Every meeting of the church opens and ends with a prayer that is offered in “the name of Jesus Christ.” • Every member looks to Him for their salvation, and ONLY to Him. • Every member is taught to follow His example of service and compassion. • The church is organized after the pattern of the church organized by Jesus in His ministry. • The church’s members are taught to be good citizens and to honor the laws of their own land. • The church’s members are taught to be tolerant of other’s beliefs (a courtesy that perhaps someday will be more universally reciprocal). • The church’s members look to Him in times of trial for inspiration, peace, comfort and reconciliation. • The church’s doctrine and practices are, upon honest examination, entirely consistent with those found in the same scriptures that other Christians use to guide their faith. Yes, Mormons are Christians. For a deeper examination, you may want to explore Mormon.org. To correct you, Tim, a lot of the things you’ve listed are not specific to the Christian faith, such as being good citizens or religious tolerance (these are just good manners). Starting and ending with Christ’s name means nothing. One who does not believe the same things Christians do can recite a prayer in his name with little comprehension of its meaning or just complete lack of faith. You follow Christ’s example. A lot of people follow MLK Jr.’s example… what does that make them? Now for the real grit of my response… Here are a couple of points the Christian church acknowledges that I don’t believe the Mormons do: 1) Original sin 2) Jesus Christ was man AND GOD (at the same time, all the time, NEVER just man)! (Nicean Creed, very important!) 3) The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) Granted the last one I’m less sure if the Mormons believe or not, but either way unless they agree with all three, they are NOT part of Christianity. It’s not a big deal though. Be proud of your faith. Why is it so important to be accepted by a group that clearly doesn’t share your beliefs. Just because you both hold Jesus Christ in such high esteem doesn’t mean you are of the same religion. Did you know that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons all pray to the same God? You don’t see Muslims and Jews trying to get together and form one religion with two very different sets of beliefs. Why must Mormons be so anxious to bust into Christianity? Be strong on your own! You’re different. Own it! The dictionary definition of a Christian is a believer and follower of Christ, and this is what a Christian is at its most core level. Tim was pointing out that Mormons have Christ as the center of their religion, and therefore, are Christians. What you point out is that Mormons don’t agree with certain interpretations of Christ’s Gospel like other Christian denominations do and argue that this disqualifies them from being Christians. Mormons are Christians because they believe in and follow the doctrine of Christ as they believe the Gospel was taught and revealed through the scriptures and modern-day Prophets. Just because they differ in their beliefs on certain doctrines of Christ’s Gospel doesn’t mean that they are not Christian’s, just that they have different opinions on doctrinal points of Christ’s Gospel. By the way, this isn’t unique to Mormons. There is a reason there are so many different denominations within the Christian Religion, there are varies opinions of key doctrinal points of Christ’s Gospel that people cannot agree upon. We Mormons believe the Holy Bible is the word of God (insofar as it is translated correctly), and we use the King James version. We also believe the The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and we use it as a companion book of scripture to the Bible. Here ar some scriptures from The Book of Mormon that will help you to know that Mormons are Christians. 2 Nephi 2 – Lehi testifies of the Savior as Redeemer. 2 Nephi 9 – Jacob testifies of the Atonement. 2 Nephi 31–33 – Nephi teaches the doctrine of Christ. Enos – Enos experiences the power of the Atonement. Mosiah 2–5 – King Benjamin teaches of Christ. Mosiah 12–16 – Abinadi gives his life in testifying of Jesus Christ. Alma 5, 7 – Alma testifies of the Savior. Alma 17–22 – Lamanites receive the testimony of Jesus Christ. Alma 34 – Amulek testifies of the Atonement. Alma 36 – Alma experiences the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Alma 40–42 – Alma testifies of the resurrection and Atonement. Helaman 5 – Nephi and Lehi are instruments in God’s hands to witness of the Savior. 3 Nephi 9–10 – The Savior invites people to come to Him. 3 Nephi 11–18 – The Savior teaches the Nephites of the Father and of His doctrine. 3 Nephi 27 – The Savior teaches His gospel. Ether 3 – The brother of Jared sees the Savior. Ether 12 – Ether and Moroni testify of the Savior and the power of His Atonement. Moroni 7–8 – Mormon teaches of the pure love of Christ and His Atonement. Moroni 10 – Moroni invites all to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. Also, the Bible contains a prophacy relative to the coming forth of The Book of Mormon in these latter days. About 600 B.C. God commanded the tribes of Israel to keep two scriptural histories rather than one as they had done in the past. The “Stick of Judah” (the Bible record) was still to be kept by the tribe of Judah, but the new record, the “Stick of Ephraim”, was to be kept by the tribe of Joseph. Thus, God also referred to it as the “Stick of Joseph”. This new record was soon hidden from world when the Prophet Lehi and a small group from the tribe of Joseph were led by God to the Western Hemisphere. However, God declared to the Prophet Ezekiel that he would bring it forth to be joined with the Stick of Judah prior to the gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the latter days. Thus, God said these sacred records “shall become one in mine hand” (Ezekiel 37:15-21. Also see 2 Nephi 3:12 in the Book of Mormon). Today, we know the Stick of Joseph as the Book of Mormon. It covers a period of history from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D., and contains the writings of some of the greatest prophets who ever lived. As a companion book to the Bible (the Stick of Judah) it provides another Testament, and a second sure witness to both Jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ! To learn more about the coming forth of this sacred record visit mormon.org on the internet. * Mormons do not believe in original sin in the same way as creedal Christians. We believe we will be punished for our own sins, not for Adam’s transgressions. We believe that the perception that an unbaptized infant is somehow damned, limited or punished in any way is a evil belief. * Jesus was always God. He became man through the process described the bible. * We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as a ‘Godhead’. They are united in purpose, but separate entities. We believe that the creeds were uninspired, man-made documents that redefined God in a way that the Apostles and early Christians would not recognize. Nearly all Mormon converts were Catholic or Protestants before joining the LDS church. They were Christians before conversion and after. Tom – if you truly believe that Jesus prayed to himself… and not to his Father in heaven… then you would also not be able to believe that Jesus Christ was a separate, divine entity from his Father… Christ taught that he was the Son of God and that his Father was also our Father… Christ always prayed to the Father… All three (3) were witnessed as separate, divine individuals for the Bible… God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit were evidenced together at the same time, in the same place, yet as three (3) separate, independent and divine individual beings – at Christ’s baptism in the River Jordan Christ always taught that he was the Son… and never proclaimed that he was God the Father… find one sentence without interpretation, to show that Christ stated “I am God”… there is not one anywhere in the Bible… The Apostle Stephen saw two (2), divine and separate beings, Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of God… Number two is incorrect. Mormons most certainly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is quite clear and easily verifiable (see the Book of Mormon – almost any page – or mormon.org). With regard to number 3, Mormons believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (all divine), but believe that their “one-ness” is that of purpose and unity, not of person or substance as some of the creeds declare. With regard to defining the boundaries of Christianity, its not as simple as picking a couple of beliefs that some faiths hold to but another does not. For example, Roman Catholics have many distinctive beliefs. Does that make catholics not Christian because they are the only church that believes in transubstantiation or praying to saints? Who decides what these criteria are? The fact of the matter is that Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is divine, that the Bible (including the New Testament) is the word of God, and that our salvation is dependent on him. This is at the very core and center of Mormon belief. There is absolutely no parallel between Mormon beliefs about Jesus and that of Judaism or Islam. To them (assuming they know something about Mormon beliefs), the question of whether Mormons are Christian is painfully obvious. Of course we are Christians. We believe in Jesus Christ! In addition, every good member of our church strives to follow Jesus Christ by keeping his commandments and doing the will of their Heavenly Father. We are Latter-day Christians. There are also Nicene Christians. Both are followers of Jesus Christ even though they differ in doctrine as to what God is like. I refer you to the following if you want to know more on the subject: Simply put, Nicene Christians believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same God, and that he (God) is a spirit without a body, parts or passions. The two bottom line differences are that we Latter-day Christians teach that Jesus Christ is a separate person from his Heavenly Father and from the Holy Ghost. We also teach that Christ has been resurrected with an immortal, glorified, spiritual body of flesh and bones like his Heavenly Father’s, and that he is still resurrected today. See Hebrews 1:1-3, Revelations. 1:10-18. In addition, Joseph Smith talked face to face with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in what we call “The First Vision”. Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that our doctrine concerning the nature of the Godhead is true. You can also refer to John 17:20-23, 20:17, Luke 22:39-44, Acts 7:55-56. These scriptures, and scores of others, show that Christ is a separate person from his father. However, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are united as “one” in purpose, thought and actions. In reference to Revelations 1:10-18 which I mentiond above please note Christ’s own statement that he is still alive (resurrected) and always will be! Also, pay particular attention to the fact that he laid his hand on John’s shoulder proving to John that he was the resurrected Christ. The issue is you did something against christian law. Having another book (the Book of Mormon) and the fact that you claim Jesus came to America after he was in the middle east. You give a different image of Jesus than christian have been given. and change is not popular among the religious and conservative. they are not quick enough to adapt as they need to. Brother, the first vision was revised multiple times and isn’t evidence of God and Jesus Christ being separate beings. Joseph could never get his story straight and he didn’t even write the final version himself. Unfortunately, the Bible is very contradictory and using it as “proof” of anything can be difficult. Personally, I don’t care if Mormons are Christians or not, what really matters is if Romney can separate his beliefs from politics. If he can forget that he’s Mormon and first think of himself as president, the nation might do ok. Everybody knows this thing of the first vision being revised multiple times is used as a straw man. Everyone who was there from the beginning of the Church knows that Joseph Smith saw two personages just like Stephen the Martyr did before they stoned him for saying so. As to Mitt Romney – you have no worry whatsoever as proven by his four years as the Governor of Mass. As a Mormon, we get a little touchy and offended when people tell us that we aren’t “Christian.” It implies that we don’t believe and follow Christ, which we whole heartedly do. He is the focus of our beliefs and everything we do in our church. There are so many people that misunderstand us and what we believe. Saying that we aren’t Christian implies we don’t believe in Christ and furthers the misunderstanding. I know we do see eye to eye on everything with all of Christendom, which is fine. We are happy to talk with people about what we have in common and where we differ (we have more in common that you think). I think we “own” our differences quite well actually. For us, it comes down to the definition of “Christian.” I think most of society would define the term “Christian” as simply believing in Jesus Christ and following Him. A very simple and inclusive definition. Dictionary defines it as follows: Adjective: Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings. Noun: A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Most of Christendom believes you must adhere to a set of beliefs (Nicene Creed, et al)that all Catholic or Protestant churches have about him to make you a Christian. I find that view vary narrow. So narrow that you exclude us from it. So you can say that we’re not Christian in your traditional sense, but that we still believe in Christ and the teachings about him in the Bible. If you can acknowledge that fact when you say we’re not Christian but we still believe in the same Christ, then we’re cool. We just don’t want people thinking that we believe our salvation comes through someone other than Jesus Christ (e.g. Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc.). So we don’t care if you accept us in your “club”, but we just want people to understand who we are: Followers of Jesus Christ. We aren’t fighting to be in any club, we are just trying to make sure our beliefs are better understood. And just to correct a couple of points you made above: 1. Original Sin – You nailed it, we don’t believe in this at all. 2. Jesus Christ was man AND GOD (at the same time, all the time, NEVER just man)! – We actually agree on this point. Jesus had a mortal mother and a divine Father. He is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. 3. The Trinity – While we don’t follow the Niceen Creed, we do believe in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We believe them to be one Godhead, made of those 3 distinct beings beings, one in purpose. We commonly point out Jesus’ baptism as evidence of this point, with all three present at the same time. So, if Christ is the Son of God, and as Paul and John said, “we are heirs with him” and “now are we the sons of God,” then how are we not brothers? Did he not say, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God (John 20:17).” Has the definition of “brother” been changed? Don’t get me wrong, we do not put ourselves on the same level with him; He has done much more for us than we could ever do for ourselves. But through the salvation he offers, he makes us “as he is.” Yeah… the Trinity is kind of a biggie… so if your so concerned with being a “Christian”, agree with the doctorine of the Christian church or decide you don’t care. Seriously! You guys have a seperate divine book for crying out loud! Even the catechism of the Catholic church won’t go as far as to put itself on the same level as the bible! They recognize it is written by man. In fact, it’s mostly a mere interpretation of the bible itself! Also, according to video for Mormon sunday school education I saw, you don’t believe in a virgin conception of Christ! Honestly! Why is it such a big deal to be called Christian when your beliefs are so far from it that you literally push Christians away like a bad smell in a small room. If its that important to you convert (though I would not recomend this as it shows little faith). I don’t mean to attack you, but it bothers me that people are so concerned with a label. I am a product of a Muslim father and Presbyterian mother. Labels are not an issue for me because I realize that religion should be about the way we worship God, not what we call ourselves. This could be the new religious revolution perhaps, rising above labels. That be wonderful. I’m very much sick of the labels of religion, as well as the prejudice. To others who responded to my reply: Did you read it? Simply following a man’s example simply makes him an idol or makes you a cult. Religion is much deeper than that. Thanks for skimming! The Trinity was defined by Catholic Bishops in 325 AD as part of the Nicene Creed and is, therefore, an interpretation of various doctrinal sources. That Catholics and Protestants still accept that interpretation does not give them a monopoly on the “label,” as you put it. Personally I don’t have a problem with “Christians” thinking I’m not one of them. There are plenty of differences between us. However, it is misunderstandings and inflammatory statements like, “Simply following a man’s example simply makes him an idol or makes you a cult” that I take issue with. To trivialize someone else’s faith and experiences with statements like that is rude and inconsiderate. Many of us have spent countless hours studying scriptures (the Bible included), praying, pondering, identifying our true feelings, considering very deeply what we are taught and what we read. We have felt and experienced things that have confirmed our beliefs, and through this process learned for ourselves that God is mindful of us. The decision to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not one that is usually taken very lightly. It means a life-long commitment and dedication to upholding and practicing the very things that Christ taught. In some cases, it means giving up family relationships and life-long friendships, because others do not condone the new member’s decision to join. (My own mother made that sacrifice, as did I). I don’t feel the need to be identified with “Christians” because I want to “fit in.” But I do want them to understand that I believe the same church Jesus Christ established anciently was RESTORED through Joseph Smith. (This goes beyond the Protestant belief that the original church was corrupted, but could be remedied by different interpretations and reformations). I do want them to understand that I have made a serious commitment to follow Christ and do what he told us to do. We don’t have to agree on everything, but don’t tell me what I believe is not “Christian” implying that I do not believe and follow Christ. What I am not is a “Traditional, Protestant, Evangelical or Orthodox Christian.” While some of our doctrines are “different” they are rooted in scripture, just not in “orthodox tradition.” “Traditional Christianity” has thousands of sects because of differences in interpretation. In my mind there is no difference. So, in all honesty, I don’t care to be associated with “Traditional Christianity;” I have a broader view of Christianity than that. I apologize. First though, just want to clarify, when I said idol I didn’t mean like a golden calf or something, I meant idol like someone you admire or aspire to be like. So my bad, I should’ve seen that coming. But I really do need to apologize. You’re right. I was rude. I think, honestly, the reason most ‘Christians’ are reluctant to call Mormons Christians is because it is so different. New book, new Prophet, new ideas… doesn’t sit too well with people who are set in their ways and sure of themselves (like myself). The validity of the Book of Mormon is also a big if for many non-mormons. I think this is where the big ‘Christianity’ question comes in. You’re right. It seems like an exclusive club. But honestly, you follow Christ, like you said so do you really need the membership? You’re right, originally Christian meant follower of Christ (or literally, “little Christ” I believe), but after the unification of the church in 325 AD the Christian Church was born and with it a set of beliefs, anything out side of which was called heresy. Wait! Still sorry… you’re not wrong! Though the church (which is now broken up into many different denominations that do all share basic beliefs) was very quick to cry heresy in the past, it is not so now. The church has become more open and hopefully more accepting. The truth is the message of Christ (I hope you’ll agree) was brotherly love and unity, kindness to others, no judgement. Please forgive me for ever judging you or being rude. I was in the wrong. You are right Sean! (not all, but definitely Sean). Thank you for being understanding and patient where I was not. Sincerely, Michelle 1) Original sin. Actually, the original transgression brought about a state wherein Adam and Eve were required to leave the innocent state in the garden and bring about the rest of the human race in a fallen world. They were accountable for their own transgressions. We are accountable for our own. The point here is that all transgression and sin require the atonement of Christ to overcome. 2) Jesus had a mortal mother and a divine Father. This is a sacred point that is beyond anyone’s perfect comprehension. The fact is, we look to Jesus as our Savior and Redeemer. The way I see it, His divine parentage have Him the power to overcome and provide salvation. His mortal parentage have Him the ability to more personally understand our mortal trials. 3) We believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Your view of how this works may be different. That is OK. The foundation of Mormon faith is that they are real we are grateful for what Jesus did to bring reconciliation and comfort in time of need. Why can’t you accept that we hold Jesus as the Christ? Who are you or anyone else to define our relationship with Christ? Amen! I’m LDS and I have been to a “Christian” church. Our beliefs are not at all the same. I believe in, love and worship Christ, but I have absolutely no desire to be labeled “Christian.” I love being a Mormon. I love that my children have never had to see their father act like an idiot while being drunk (I grew up watching my dad get drunk). I love that our children are taught to be modest from a young age. I love that when I was diagnosed with cancer and was unable to take care of my young family, the members of my church stepped in and brought in meals, visited me in the hospital, got my kids ready in the morning and took a lot of pressure off of my husband. I love that I know almost every single one of my neighbors by name. So make fun of us, persecute us (we’re used to it by now), call us a cult, say we are hate-filled bigots (all though, as far as I know, no mormon has gone through a drive-thru and harassed a poor worker for not believing the same way they do and then posted it on YouTube…) but at the end of the day, we are good, hard-working people just trying to raise our families and live in a country that hates us and are constantly trying to make us ashamed of our beliefs (proof from all of the negative, hate-filled bigoted comments on this board). 10 Facts You Should Know About Mormon History and Belief before Shooting Your Mouth Off 1. Mormons believe in a trinity of three divine persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who are one in purpose. 2. 1832 – A runaway slave named Elija Able is baptized and ordained to the priesthood. He serves multiple missions to Canada where he would be safe from the Fugitive Slave Laws. He was probably the first black Mormon. 3. 1833 – While about half of all Mormons were residing in Missouri, a slave state, Joseph Smith received a revelation that became section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Verse 79 says “Therefore it is not right that one man should be in bondage to another.” 4. 1838 – Mormons were expelled from Missouri under threat of extermination (Executive Order 44). A petition of complaints against them made no mention of polygamy but complains that Mormons invited “free negroes and mulattoes” to join them in Missouri. 5. 1844 – Joseph Smith runs for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850. He is murdered the same year. 6. 1852 – Utah enacts the most liberal divorce laws in the United States and possibly the world. Any woman who insists on a divorce gets one. Meanwhile, Brigham Young imposes a lineage restriction on the Aaronic and Melchezidec priesthoods; withholding them from presumed descendants of Ham. 7. 1869 – The Utah territorial legislature which was dominated by Mormons voted to give women the vote. At the time, only Wyoming had female suffrage. 8. 1887 – The federal government takes the vote away from Utah women (Edmunds-Tucker Act) . 9. 1978 – Governor Bond of Missouri officially rescinds Executive Order 44 (which had not been enforced for over a century) and formally apologizes for it. The same year Spencer W Kimball and the quorum of the twelve decided to end all lineage requirements for holding the Aaronic and Melkezidec priesthoods. 10. Mormons believe that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father and also believe that Jesus was begotten by the Father before the creation of all worlds. 1. Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” was initially described as an encounter with one being. Many years later he developed the concept that the ‘godhead’ consisted of 3 distinct personages, God the Father having a body of flesh and bones having once been a man. 2. The Mormon god apparently revealed to his servant the prophet, Brigham Young, that blacks can’t hold the Mormon priesthood. Up until 1978, Mormon prophets taught that blacks were less faithful in the premortal life and cursed with dark skin in this life. 3-7. The Mormon War Papers held by the Secretary of State for Missouri tell a very different story. The extermination order against Mormons was issued because of tyranny and lawlessness. It had nothing to do with slavery. Smith was in a Illinois prison awaiting extradition for the capital offense of treason. Hundreds of hours of discussion by the state assembly, governor and military leaders in the field never mention slavery once. http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/findingaids/rg005-01.asp Leading up to the civil war, the only western state/territory to allow slavery was Utah. Smith’s presidential platform suggested using tax revenue to buy all slaves then send them to Texas. He also promoted releasing all prisoners throughout the U. S. believing his Mormonism would transform them. The Governor or Missouri and the State Legislature ordered the military to put down the Mormon insurgency. Why? The Mormons were breaking the law, not observing the agreement they had with the state and were harboring fugitives. “It was considered by me that full and ample powers were vested in you to carry into effect my former orders, the case is now a very plain one, the Mormons must be subdued and peace restored to the community; you will therefore proceed without delay to execute the former orders, full confidence is reposed in your ability to do so, your force will be amply sufficient to accomplish the object; Should you need the aid of artillery I would suggest that an application be made to the Commanding Officer of Ft. Leavenworth for such as you many need, you are Authorized to request the loan of it in the name of the State of Missouri.” “I therefore again repeat that you are authorized and full power is given you to take whatever steps you deem necessary and such as the circumstances of the case may seem to d[e]mand to subdue the insurgents and give peace and qui[e]t to the country. The ringleaders of this rebellion should be made an example of and if it should become necessary for the public peace the Mormons should be exterminated or expelled from the State.” Governor L. W. Boggs Commander in Chief So, the Mormons were not goody-two-shoes innocent in this matter whatsoever. It was so out of control the governor recommended calling in the US artillery from Fort Leavenworth to return Missouri to a state of peace and quiet that existed before the Mormons showed up. 10. This is a patently false statement. Mormonism teaches that Christ was the first born in the premortal spirit world. He is literally the spirit brother of all mankind. Having received his celestial glory, Christ now sits on the right hand of God. They are not equal but share equally in power and glory. There’s a scripture in King James bible Romans 8:17 that reads,”And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him, that we malso may be glorified together.” We (All people) are Children of God..this is the first principle we teach in the Mormon church to our children so that they understand their divine heritage and purpose here on this Earth. We are here to do God’s will and fulfill the supreme plan of our Heavenly Father in which Christ is the mediator of this great plan. What is this plan? Look at the life of Christ, he set the ultimate example of what we as people should do here. He was born, was baptized by an authorized servant of God, John the Baptist. He taught the people about his Father in Heaven and that he came to do His will in preaching against sin. He sacrificed all he had (even his life) so that people might follow God and live forever with Him in Heaven. He was crucified and rose again as a ressurected glorified God who sits on the right hand of God the Father. Christ has set the example of righteous living, now he awaits our return as we strive to follow his example he set on this Earth, and then by the grace of God…we can become “joint heirs” receiving all the Father hath in stoe for his children. What Good Father would not want to give and let his children have the very best? In effect, God wants us to enjoy a fullness of joy, happinness and blessings that he does…so we therefore become like Him, a God. I posted a response to your comment a few posts down from you. I am a Mormon, we ARE christians…the name of our church is “The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints.” We are the Saints of Christ’s true Church in these the latter-days. “Mormon” is a nickname people gave us because of the Book of Mormon, which we hold in equal breadth and esteem with the Holy Bible. If anything, other church’s “baptists, calvinists, catholics” etc. should be viewed with a more skeptical eye since there is no mention of JESUS even in their church names. Please go to http://www.mormon.org to learn more. This Ken Dahl guy is NOT a Mormon, but a hater who has nothing else to do with his life except talk bad about a people who have never wronged him. He sounds like he has personal problems. I was not aware of the anti-slavery history of the Mormons, but that makes it even more inexplicable why they had discriminatory, exlusionary doctines and practices towards blacks that were not lifted until 1978. “Under the racial restrictions that lasted from the presidency of Brigham Young until 1978, persons with any black African ancestry could not hold the priesthood in the LDS Church and could not participate in some temple ordinances, such as the Endowment and celestial marriage. Black people were permitted to be members of the church, and participate in other temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead.[23] The racial restriction policy was applied to black Africans, persons of black African descent, and any one with mixed race that included any black African ancestry. The policy was not applied to Native Americans, Hispanics, Melanesians or Polynesians.” –Wikipedia Oddly, the Mormons felt it was necessary to have a revelation removing the priesthood restriction. There is NO revelation establishing the policy in the first place. It was instituted because of racism. The granting of the priesthood should have been started with an apology for the racism of the church until 1978. Couching the 1978 announcement as a ‘revelation’ is absurd. Ken – being aware is what history is all about…. that includes not always knowing why God chooses to do what He does…. Historically the “mark of Cain” or “curse of Ham” came from interpretations of Bible stories and was a commonly accepted concept of the early 16th to the 19th century Christian religions of Europeans and Americans regarding people of black skin – According to historical scholars, early interpretations of the Bible in Syriac Christianity combined the “curse” with the “mark”, and interpreted the curse of Cain as black skin. Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis (“And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell”) as implying that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color. The explanation that black Africans, as the “sons of Ham”, were cursed, possibly “blackened” by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries. The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the U.S. and Europe. Look at your Baptist churches – The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th and 20th century Baptist ministers in the southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites. Many Protestant groups in America had supported the notion that black slavery, oppression, and African colonization was the result of God’s curse on people with black skin or people of African descent through Cain or through the curse of Ham, and some churches practiced racial segregation as late as the 1990s. The Civil Rights movement occurred in the 1960s, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historians know that the “Act” didn’t change centuries-old bigotry, prejudice, and segregation (voluntary and involuntary) overnight. In fact, it was not until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention officially renounced its “racist roots” and denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery. And though early in LDS Church history there had been “opinions” spoken by a few LDS church members about the “mark of Cain” or “curse of Ham” being the main reasons for skin color being black, it is not and never has been taught as LDS church doctrine. Maybe it has something to do with God’s “timing”…. Today there are over 1 million Mormons of black African heritage worldwide. While African-Americans make up just 3 percent of Mormons in the United States, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center study, they make up 9 percent of Mormon converts… In Africa, now at just over 300,000 Latter-day Saints, church membership has grown by almost 10,000 new members per year, and they now have 3 LDS Temples there, and are building 2 more. In your experience that may be true, but I believe you stated that you were a convert? I remember several times as a young man born into the covenant my bishop telling all of us young men that Cain was cursed by god to be black and work the earth. In addition, I was also told by my bishop that blacks were “fence sitters” in the great war in heaven thus they were marked with black skin. I know that the Bishop was just a “man” and that he was not speaking for the church, but that is the problem with the “official doctrine” of the church it changes so much no one knows what is what. The doctrine of the Church doesn’t change! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Jesus is the Christ, etc. etc. What does change are the opinions of the members. For instance: Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following about the 1978 revelation extending the Priesthood along with all its responsibilities and blessings to all men. “I was present when the Lord revealed to President Spencer W. Kimball that the time had come, in His eternal providences, to offer the fullness of the gospel and the blessings of the holy priesthood to all men. “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” “We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelli¬gence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.” “It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any parti¬cles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles.” In other words, it is now time for members and non-member alike to forget all the statements that limited the fullness of the gospel to those of black African descent. After all, that was 34 years ago, and if I am not mistaken in the world today approximately 200,000 of our 14 million members have black African ancestry. Are you sure about number ten? I’ve read a lot about LDS and from those sources (and from numerous conversations with Mormons) I would have to disagree. I’ve always heard/ read that Mormons believe he was God who became man, but was a mortal man on earth… not God. Many Mormons have told me this. I lived in a community where there were more Mormons than Catholics, and almost the same number as the Protestants. I am almost 100% sure that I am not wrong here… comments? @Madelin, Doug has it right, all ten. The Saints believe that our Heavenly Father had to progress through obtaining a physical body to become who and what he is. We do not have any specifics (that I’m aware of) on how all that worked, only that he had to progress the same way we do. We believe he is physically present on a planet known as Kolob. Most of us, do not concern ourselves with details that will be made known to us when we are properly prepared to receive them; in the Father’s timeline, not ours. There are many things that we believe we will receive, not when we feel we need the knowledge, but when Christ or our Heavenly Father feels we need it. We walk by faith, trying to receive and practice those things he has already provided, and that we are so woefully inadequate to right now. We preach that revelation from God, his instructions for us, come “line upon line, precept upon precept.” I want to thank, Rich Barlow, for a thoughtful, balanced and well-written article. There are many things that traditional Christian denominations will not accept of our beliefs. Just as Baptist, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and other denominations will never agree between themselves on every point. I believe Samuel Clemons said that “Differences of opinions is what makes for religions, politics, and horse races.” Quiet Dave — not sure where you get your information…. but the actual explanation of “Kolob” is that it is a star, and it never had been taught by scripture that it is a planet… Abraham 3:13 and 16 will help clarify that for you…. Good thing I was raised as a hard studying Lutheran (Missouri Synod) and taught Sunday School and was a youth group leader…. before joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… keeps me on my toes…. I think all of this is a great discussion. My insight is something that touched my life. A great friend of mine was not allowed to attend her daughter’s wedding ceremony as well as her rest of her guests because we were not part of the church. This was her only daughter and none of her grandparents or brothers, or best friends were allowed to witness. I know this is almost a decade late, and I didn’t plan on commenting on anyone’s but I relate on a personal level with this one. I can definitely see why this would upset you, and as a family is the only thing I want out of life, if I were not able to attend my daughters wedding, I would be ripped to shreds. I am one of my maternal grandparents’ four grandchildren. My mom was one one of two kids, the other was only married for 6 months and never had any kids. In other words, my mom bore my maternal grandparents their only grandchildren. My grandpa on her side, was unable to attend the wedding because he was not an LDS. This broke both my mom’s heart and her dad’s heart, but in the end they both understood why this was the case and came to accept it (quite quickly). The temple, where these ceremonies are held, is very very very very sacred to us. We have yearly interviews (non invasive; light questions like do you have a testimony of Jesus Christ, have you kept the Word of Wisdom (what advises against smoking and all that Jazz), are you honest in all your doings with your fellow men) that verify our worthiness. It’s the house of the Lord in our eyes, and we want to make sure everything that enters is as pure as possible. I’ve been a member all my life, and personally, I wouldn’t be here today without it. It saved me from suicide when I suffered a psychological blow that was as real as it was unanticipated after I learned a best friend’s sister (so close she felt like my own sister) was to die from a terminal cancer and another friend attempted suicide on the same day. The battle I endured, to keep the will to live, held me on the edge for 6 long months. This battle ended only at the beginning of this year. I’m a skeptic, a huge one. This is because I value knowledge in one of the highest esteems, I’ve pondered, prayed, and searched the scriptures (holy bible and bom) to find personal peace with all the heavily controversial questions most kids in my religion don’t delve into too deeply because it’s scary territory. These include polygamy, why Africans were barred from the priesthood, why women don’t hold the priesthood, etc. each of these questions bothered me for months on end! But in the end I found my answers, and it strengthened my testimony so strongly, I could never deny this religion. Not saying ill be able to follow it perfectly but I’ll do my gosh darn best. I know for myself that my religion teaches principles that follow the teachings of Christ and that my religion is true. I’ve dedicated the past few years of my life to becoming closer to Him. I’ve read the Book of Mormon for almost the 5th time cover to cover, the New Testament 2 times, the old 1, and have almost completed The Doctrine and Covenants. I cry even now as I write this because I feel I have begun to forget about Him in my endeavors to be Valedictorian and secure scholarships to college so I can ensure a financially sound family. I cry even now as I write this because I do not understand how grown people can persecute others so strongly while claiming to be a disciple of Christ. It is not fair to deny or shutdown anyone’s beliefs, religions they have lived for, because you quite simply do not agree!! Every great man knows he doesn’t know everything. This includes fellow LDS. We believe in allowing everyone to worship who where when why and what they may. That is an article of faith. Just because you see an LDS persecuting a gay(we are told to neither promote or actively fight homosexuality; they are children of God, our equals, and can even be a member as a gay uncle of mine was), or responding poorly to questions doesn’t mean they are embodying what we teach as with any religion. We are also told to not read things like this, and I know why, yet I still do it sometimes. It’s so contentious. It’s so negative. It’s so NOT embodying Jesus Christ. Love and forgive, there are so many ways to shed light on subjects without slandering people. I’m not even 17 yet, and I have so much to learn. But I do know hating people simply for their standpoints is ridiculous. Please stay kind, John P.S. Rich, I am not saying you were being contentious. Your comment actually spoke to me because I didn’t feel hate but genuine concern/experience. I need to thank you though. You May never see this, but your comment inspired me to start thinking deeply about my beliefs. I haven’t really been lately, and Idk why your comment inspired me. But it did, and I really needed it so thank you. I agree with others that the social conservatives will hold their collective noses and vote for Romney. His difficulty might well be in attracting liberal independents. As a Mormon, I’ve encountered about as much sheer ignorance and deep prejudice among liberal as among evangelicals. Sad, because we expect education to create tolerance. Ms Hutchison-Jones is the exception, and that’s a very sad state of affairs. It is too convenient to analyse Mormon History post 1890. Prior to 1890, it would be possible to characterize Mormonism as a THE MOST IMMMORAL RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT in world history. Normally, you have to go into the political arena to find such widespread corruption and pyramids of power. – – If there was a politcal group for the descendents of Pol Pot or grandchildren of Idi Amin, would we consider their history by ignoring their beginnings? I just find it funny that BU puts up an article about Mormons and then they sit down and do an interview with a non-Mormon. It seems to me that a Mormon would be the right person to asks these questions to because they’re actually living the lifestyle. But of course it’s more advanced to use an ‘expert’ who has just read up on the religion. I’m sure they know all that they need to know. You talk about diversity, but do you live it? Things that make you go ‘hmm’ Actually, as a non-Mormon it would be refreshing to hear the opinion of a non-Mormon expert, but also a Mormon. At least then the biases might even each other out. As to having a Mormon only… out of the question! Of course your opinion would be completely biased! You would want to sell your religion, evangilize. Personally, I’m more comfortable hearing a more objective point of view on any religion (including my own). I don’t trust those practicing a religion to give me an honest summary of their religion good and bad points. They would only want to share positive aspects and avoid anything controversial or negative completely. “I don’t trust those practicing a religion to give me an honest summary of their religion good and bad points. They would only want to share positive aspects and avoid anything controversial or negative completely.” If that were true we (Mormons) wouldn’t be posting on this thread. :) Look, not everything about the church is rosy and perfect, but that’s more because it’s made up of imperfect people trying to do what they feel are the right things. It’s perfectly legitimate for people to ask about the history and doctrines of the church, even if it is uncomfortable for us, and you might actually be pleasantly surprised to find that not all of us are “evangelical” in our responses. Sure, we get excited if someone shows an interest in what we believe; it’s an opportunity to get to know each other and build friendships. But to distrust someone just because of their affiliation with an organization? Would you apply the same logic in conversing with someone from the Occupy Movement, or the Tea Party? What about your local PTA or United Way? Or anyone else with a “cause?” Seems you’ll never get the full picture if you’re only interested in talking with their enemies and observers. (Perhaps an Anthro course could help you understand why that’s not a preferred method of discovery. Just a thought). You are right. However, in this case the Mormons simply declare their beliefs while the anti-Mormons slam them and their religion with hate filled rhetoric. Now, since we all know that hate doesn’t come from s loving God there is no need to look into what the anti-Mormons have to say: For instance I posted: Are Mormons Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Jesus Christ! In addition, every good member of our church strives to follow Jesus Christ by keeping his commandments and doing the will of their Heavenly Father. We are Latter-day Christians. There are also Nicene Christians. Both are followers of Jesus Christ even though they differ in doctrine as to what God is like. I refer you to the following if you want to know more on the subject: Simply put, Nicene Christians believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same God, and that he (God) is a spirit without a body, parts or passions. The two bottom line differences are that we Latter-day Christians teach that Jesus Christ is a separate person from his Heavenly Father and from the Holy Ghost. We also teach that Christ has been resurrected with an immortal, glorified, spiritual body of flesh and bones like his Heavenly Father’s, and that he is still resurrected today. See Hebrews 1:1-3, Revelations. 1:10-18. In addition, Joseph Smith talked face to face with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in what we call “The First Vision”. Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that our doctrine concerning the nature of the Godhead is true. You can also refer to John 17:20-23, 20:17, Luke 22:39-44, Acts 7:55-56. These scriptures, and scores of others, show that Christ is a separate person from his father. However, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are united as “one” in purpose, thought and actions. In reference to Revelations 1:10-18 which I mentiond above please note Christ’s own statement that he is still alive (resurrected) and always will be! Also, pay particular attention to the fact that he laid his hand on John’s shoulder proving to John that he was the resurrected Christ. Then came the venomous reply to my post: They said: Brother French – Don’t you have a baseball field baptism to perform somewhere. Speak the truth. Lying is a sin and your works are filthy rags to god. Your works, my works, all works are filthy rags before god: “We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall, and our sins sweep us away like the wind – Isiah 64:6” The baseball baptism comment was not fair to you, as I do not know if you have performed any of them and I apologize. Yeah… I’m pretty sure no one but red neck back woods hill billies care about that (which is probably hypocritical of them, lol). Most people are pretty aware that polygamy is no longer accepted by the Church of the Latter Day Saints. So… calm down. With the racist language used in Mormon Scriptures Dark Skinned American have a good reason to fear a Romney Presidency. I( have not seen any mention of Mitt Romney ever rejecting these racist teachings and the 1978 “Revelation” did not do anything to change the message in the scriptures. William on, the Romney family (along with most members of my faith) has a long history of being in favor of civil rights. One problem Mitt’s father (George) had with the right wing of the Republican party in his 1968 campaign was in his work for civil rights, both as governor of Michigan and on a nationwide scale. I’m old enough to remember when the ban on blacks having the priesthood was lifted in 1978. Everyone I knew rejoiced in that change, and delighted in the fact that almost all church members had now reach a level where they could treat all races as brothers. As for the “racist language” in Mormon scriptures, it’s nothing compared with the comandment to Moses and Joshua to destroy all non-Hebrews, and even thir own kin who would not eschew worship of the golden calf. In the Book of Mormon, the term “Lamanite” (used at first to describe the group with darker skin) changes in meaning, and for the vast majority of the text, is merely used to describe those who do not follow Christ, much as Jews use the word gentile. Larry the 1978 “Revelation” is meaningless unless the scripture supporting the LDS historic hatred of Dark Skin is denounced. In the bible I do not remember the authors taking the time to produce detailed descriptions of “awfulness” of their targets (victims) like the Author’s of LDS scriptures did. The LDS Scripture were created to deal with and applied to Mormon’s own Countrymen! Perhaps you ought to go back to the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua and see what the Lord said about the people of Canaan and the lands round about. Truth is, hatred of people with different shades of skin color is not taught in the church. In fact, hatred of any person is severely frowned upon and considered sinful. What is taught is hatred of sin, mostly in ourselves. In all my years in the church I’ve never heard ANYONE preach about hating anybody else, regardless of nationality, creed, gender, sexual orientation or affiliation. Now, I’m not so naive as to think it doesn’t happen, particularly in regions of the country where such things are prevalent generally, but any who do are not espousing the doctrines of the church. The commandment is to love one another, period. I find it ironic that Hutchison-Jones is encouraging tolerance of Mormons. As someone who grew up in the western US, where Mormons are generally either a majority or a significant minority, I have found Mormons to be almost uniquely intolerant of those who do not share their beliefs. Their attitudes towards women and minorities, in particular, are so medieval as to be almost barbaric, and are inconsistent with a free, open, and tolerant society. Until just a couple of decades ago, their theology held that nonwhites were incapable of salvation, a belief that was changed only out of political expediency, as was their convenient ban on polygamy a century ago. The history of Utah politics, even after statehood, shows a consistent blurring of the line between church and state. My worry about Romney is that he is well known as a politician who will say anything if he thinks it will get him elected, and it’s impossible for voters to know where he really stands on issues such as women’s rights and antidiscrimination. I suspect that down deep his social views are as reactionary as those of LDS church elders. I don’t want to take a chance as having someone like that as president. By the way, “September Dawn,” may have been a horrible movie, but there isn’t much of the history in it that’s made up (aside from the silly romance). Though there is no “smoking gun,” the circumstantial evidence supporting Brigham Young’s direct involvement in the massacre of the Fancher party is overwhelming. Perhaps it is an overstatement to compare Young to Pol Pot or Idi Amin, but he was clearly a zealot who considered all “nonbelievers” to be evil, as well as being a sexual predator who preyed on teenage girls. How anyone in good conscience can follow a religious doctrine developed by someone like that is beyond me Yes – Mia Love, a Haitian Mormon married to a white Mormon, whose views of women and minorities are in fact a great example of what I find undemocratic and intolerant. She’s even further to the right than Brigham Young! Just to correct a couple errors in your understanding in your comment about nonwhites being incapable of salvation. I can only assume you are referring to the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood. 1) there was never a “nonwhites” prohibition as some of the earliest missionary endeavors were among the native americans and hawaiians, 2) it was not that blacks were incapable of salvation, it was freely acknowledged that salvation was for everyone, regardless of race/skin color. Blacks were taught and baptized. The only thing that was withheld during mortal life was ordination to the priesthood. It was freely taught that at some point (whether in this life or eternity – that part was rather freely debated in spite of supposed “authoritative opinion” on the subject – particularly Bruce R. McConkie), the rites withheld because they required ordination to the priesthood would be available to ALL in eternity, just as salvation for ALL (“whites” and “nonwhites”) who lived during periods in the earth’s history when or where the gospel of Christ’s salvation was available. This still doesn’t explain why the pronouncements of LDS church leaders have consistently asserted that blacks are “the cursed descendants of Cain” who are, like women, unable to achieve “the highest heaven,” and that Native Americans were “made red by Jesus” as a punishment for nonbelief. However much the church has moderated their rhetoric in recent years (due to public scorn), they have never formally denounced these interpretations. In my opinion, any theology that denies the equality of human beings is fundamentally anti-American. You’re entitled to your own opinion, of course. Sorry, JTM, I must disagree. Mormon theology does not deny the equality of human beings; it requires obedience to the laws of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which some outside the church have interpreted to be the same thing. In fact, they are quite different. For example, no where in the teachings or doctrines of the church does it say that women are “unable to achieve the highest heaven,” as you put it. Men and women are equally kept from that privilege if they do not live worthy of it. I’m sorry you’ve obviously had some bad experiences with some Mormons. That is unfortunate. Being a Mormon in the west I can honestly say that I’ve never intentionally been exclusionary or intolerant to anyone. Some of my best friends over the years have been black, some Hispanic and some gay. Each of them knew that I cared about them, even if we didn’t agree on lifestyles or religions. While I’m sorry that your experience was not pleasant, I don’t think everyone in the church fits with your description of it, or its leaders. And obviously, I don’t think my religion is anti-American. I’ve often found that those suggesting such things are often much less just and tolerant than they try to appear to be. I hope you are not one of them. “Say anything to get elected”…this is different from Obama how? unemployment below 8% health care debates televised war on drugs cutting the deficit in half not raising taxes on the middle class ending the bush tax cuts closing Gitmo Yes, it IS funny, possibly ridiculous. Regrettably, I must confess that I am guilty of being intolerant of intolerance. However, unlike me, Mitt Romney is a leading figure in an intolerant religion (or cult, if you prefer) who’s trying to become the most powerful person on the face of the earth. That frightens me a great deal, considering his track record of saying whatever resonates with the “focus groups” and seldom being candid or consistent about his convictions. You’re confusing Mitt Romney with Tom Cruise. With regards to “consistency” Ron Paul is the only politician who is ideologically honest and consistent with every vote/statement/piece of legislature…don’t even try to say Obama. Its clearly not ‘intolerance’ that you are intolerant of. It is ideology with which you do not agree that motivates your intolerance. Not all behavior is worthy of tolerance. Birkenstock Bigotry is intolerance on a high horse with hypocrisy. Liberalism in many ways qualifies as the ‘intolerant religion’ you so passionately oppose. I think people need to stop making assumptions and research the Mormon religion. How can you talk about a religion that you haven’t studied. Its like saying that all Muslims are violent. I encourage everyone to spend a week and read up on Mormonism. Make your own decision and let the people that choose to be Mormon be Mormon. With all religions you can’t force someone to be a member. Most religions won’t change for the beliefs of a few. Most christian religions belief in the same basic laws as the Mormons. I invite all to study the religion and make a decision for yourself. There are so many who seem to desire to connect The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the church of the devil. That should tell those who profess to be Christians who actually study the bible that there is something wrong with these attacks against the church that bears his name. Even the Savior was accused of receiving his power from Beelzebub who was the chief of the devils or in other words Satan. It was The Church of Jesus Christ that their nick name Christians came because of their membership in it. The bible itself tells us that the history of the earth and world was divided into 7 periods of time and those periods are called dispensations which refers to what the Lord dispensed to his people in each dispensation. It is clear that all things were not a part of each of those dispensations. Except of course the dispensation of the fulness of times where as Paul tells the Ephesians in Chapter one verse 10 of the very bible many Christians claim is inerrant. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: That would include all things as well as plural marriage (polygamy) It is clear from that same bible that plural marriage (Polygamy) was a part of the gospel plan among those such as Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob as well as many other patriarchs in the old testament and if we actually had the total information on those generations after we read about in the new testament it was practiced after the Savior’s resurrection and ascending into heaven. That practice has existed since the beginning until the puritans altered tradition. It is still practiced among a number of the religions of our day. Of course if one does not believe the bible to be inerrant then it would not matter whether it was a part of the gospel in other dispensations or not. It was essential for plural marriage (polygamy) to be restored if but for a brief period of time as we read in Ephesians. The Lord will have a tried people, and anyone who would be required by the Lord to enter into plural marriage would definitely have a major trial especially when that man would confront his wife with the news that the Lord had commanded them to take another wife into their family. I would not desire to present that to my wife under any circumstances. On the other hand their were many who left the church rather than accept the will of the Lord. There is no doubt this happened in the 1890’s the fact that there are yet polygamists who claim to be latter-day saint when they’ve never belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The irony of this is that no matter how one tries to explain the gospel a sound bit here and there does not show the whole complete plan of salvation. WHen it is all blended together and we don’t look beyond the point it is most simple and marvelous. By their fruits ye shall know them. I would remind you that I am not the mouth piece for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but if one was to accept the bible as inerrant I would think that every verse would be considered by those who say it is inerrant. I do appreciate this author who has exerted an honest effort to clear up some of the misgivings folks have concerning our brothers and sisters who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While I appreciate the some of the facts posted in the article, and the opportunity to hear what non-LDS people think about predjudice against the Mormons, I wish that this article had presented views from both Mormons and those who aren’t. To say that the creators of South Park and the Book of Mormon Musical are the most sympathetic to Mormons in today’s popular culture just because they don’t bring up polygamy doesn’t make them sympathetic- the satire and ridicules made on current beliefs and practices are less sympathetic to me than the ridicule of those practices, such as polygamy that are no longer practiced in the church. Perhaps the next article can be written from the view of those students who are Mormon at BU, who can be found through the BU Latter Day Saint Student Association. Even at BU, I have seen moments of predjudice from both students and professors. I agree the issue with polygamy is in the past with the majority of Mormons but, you cannot ignore certain things about their past. You cannot ignore the fact that their profit allowed polygamy so he could marry other men wives. While one of Joseph friends was away he married his wife. He also married a 15 year old. The issue with polygamy is the fact that it was started in their church because their profit was a horny guy, then they had to change. This article does not really address the fundamental issues the Mormons face with other Christians. Like how Christ came to America and how native Americans are red because they were punished by God. Or how Joesph Smith said he translated Egyptian Hieroglyphics before it could be translated. Mormons are the issue because their religion has never been vetted in the public eye. Alec, substantial DNA research has failed to find a single child of Joseph Smith other than through his first wife, Emma. That seriously undercuts the theory that “their profit (sic) was a horny guy.” Joseph Smith was indeed “sealed” to other men’s wives, but with the clear understanding that they would only be married to their husbands in this life, to Joseph Smith only in the next. …and, of course, a fifteen-year-old woman was often married in the 1840s, and it would be a good thing if she could be married to an older established man. A community leader would be even better. Larry, what does it matter that a child cannot be found? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absences. The fact that he married many women among two sister in which he had raised as his step daughters is not right. The evidence is in the fact that he married any women or girl he wanted. You’ve overlooked signed affidavits of some of his wives that clearly indicate sexual activity and letters from others which indicate the same behavior. “Joseph Smith was indeed “sealed” to other men’s wives, but with the clear understanding that they would only be married to their husbands in this life, to Joseph Smith only in the next” How is this not wrong? Worthy, Mormon men, denied Godship because Joseph married their wives… sounds about wrong to me. If we are to use the same logic that you’ve presented: rumors state that Joseph ordered abortions (and was friends with an abortionist) for some of his wives. The lack of evidence (lack of children) must mean that he truly did force women to have abortions. Of course, there is almost no evidence to support this claim, but the fact you can’t disprove it makes it valid :) There is, however, more evidence to support the theory that he did have sexual contact with his wives. religion it self encourages intolerance (read the Bible). Most liberals do not pretend to be self rightous in the public eye then toss all moral out the window while trying to make an extra million off of the poor. BS. Totally incorrect. Most liberals do indeed pretend to be self righteous in the public eye with their phony BS about ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. Then go ahead and attack and show prejudice against ideologies with which they disagree. Exhibit A the threads in this discussion. Exhibit B the PAC not inviting BYU to join their Birkenstock club because they ‘are not a good fit’. And they profit – indeed they feed on – the so called masses of ‘oppressed’, ‘victimized’, and ‘under-privileged’ they supposedly ‘serve’. Science is not. Science provides explanations based on a process. Religion is emotional and culturally based. People believe in Religion first, then find evidence to back up their belief. Science follows the majority of the evidence and then makes a conclusion. The key is science is allowed to change their theories, or edit them when evidence says to. Religion does not use evidence they use faith, and changing their laws would mean they had to admit they do not really hear God or have his chosen word. Liberals are among the most intolerant people today. Its their way or the highway. Witness the Birkenstock Bigots of the PAC and their ‘policy’ of not having any non-secular institution be part of them. Now that’s diversity isn’t it?!? Just too good for those backward, regressive religious people! P.S. the term ‘Progressive’ is the biggest misnomer in American political history. In that last paragraph, the BU scholar overlooks the paramount motivation in voting for Romney: O-B-A-M-A. Obama. Any conservatives who find Romney’s religion unappealing are going to push this aside (as they should) because President Obama has a record to defend. Adding more debt–$4.939 trillion to be exact–in 3.5 years than the 4.899 trillions added in Bush’s 8 years in office. Foodstamps. Solyndra. Obamacare…which supreme court decision withstanding, is still viewed as an unfavorable law 60+/30+. The polls don’t lie. It’s going to be an exciting election. You should keep in mind that Bush did not put the Iraq or Afghan war on the budget. Obama did once he took office and it increased the spending massively. Obama has not spent as much as projected because Bush did not pay for the war or even out the cost on the bill. Also the Majority of Americans want Opponents of the law to move on and deal with other issues, like the economy. Not only that, since republicans took the house all they have done is block legislation. That will not go unnoticed. That’s what the MSM wants you to think re:the court. But polls leading up the Supreme Court decision showed NO wavering on the law’s low favorability rating (which has been consistent since it was “passed”). This didn’t change over night thanks to the ruling. Everyone supposedly can’t stand the house right now, but I take little issue with anything they’ve blocked. Besides, on things that really MATTER, like Obama’s budget for our country…that was voted down 414-0 by the house March and then a 2nd time by the Senate, 99-ZERO. And Obama had the House and the Senate for two years. He whines a lot about congress but unfortunately many of us remember 2008-2010. Absolutely. I dislike Romneycare. But it’s implementation is well within our State’s rights. If I really wanted to, I could move. Obamacare is federal government overreach. Hopefully it will be go the way of Dred Scott. Why don’t you consider moving to Utah and converting to Mormonism? Then the church can tithe you 10% to take care of the less fortunate – – Mormons only, of course. Even better than Romneycare – – more like Obama’s “socialism.” Im amazed at how many people feel a need to argue over my faith. Im a Mormon. Im a good person. I serve my community and help my neighbors on a regular basis without asking for anything in return. I love my wife and 20 month old son and make an honest living trying to provide for them. My wife is an M.D working on getting her P.h.d. who immigrated here South America. We’ve both worked hard to get to where we are today. If you want to waste your lives trying to prove my Mormon faith wrong than be my guest but ultimately the welfare of my soul is MY business and at the end of the day, I can sleep well knowing that ive tried to live my life as a good, decent and hard working person who doesn’t try to pick apart others views and beliefs. Im far from perfect but at least im not a douche to others based on ignorant misconceptions and lies. Ultimately, judge me on merits and actions rather than my background, religion, political views or the color of my skin. MB, I agree to a certain extent that your religion is your own business and people can be ignorant with their opinions. However, when an organization claims to teach tolerance, but supports intolerance at the same time, it reflects on you that you continue to be a member of that organization. You might not agree, but I consider actively campaigning against gay marriage with time and money to be supporting intolerance. Especially when a federal appeals court found CA prop 8 unconstitutional. How do you think it makes LDS look that they spent $20 to $30 mil in support of a proposition that was ruled unconstitutional? If you want everyone else to leave your religion alone, why doesn’t your religion leave them alone? What business is it for a religion to be passing laws saying how others should live their lives? I have the same problem with any church that campaigns against equality. Democrat Harry Reed is President of the United States Senate. He is a Mormon. Perhaps we need to replace him with a good Non-Mormon Republican. Vote Republican and you can get rid of another Mormon…..who is currently President of the Senate. This subject is embarrassing and ridiculous. I hope everyone votes based on who they think will do the job and get us out of debt and get our economy going. Obama and Harry Reed have had their chance. Time for a new idea. The problem is that those who for some reason think it’s important to be against Mormons, and to persecute them, state negative opinions and quote inaccurate and out of context information from dubious sources as facts in a hateful manner. Also, note that those who do so seem to have studied only one side of the issue. Then, they summarily dismiss additional information posted by Mormons in response to their posts. For instance, someone inferred that Mormons were not Christians. In reply, I posted something to study if a person really wanted to know if Mormons are Christians or not. I didn’t get any response other than one short hate filled reply. Evidently there are few seekers of truth out there. The following is what I posted: We Mormons believe the Holy Bible is the word of God (insofar as it is translated correctly), and we use the King James Version. We also believe the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and we use it as a companion book of scripture to the Bible. Here are some scriptures from The Book of Mormon that will help you to know that Mormons are Christians: 2 Nephi 2 – Lehi testifies of the Savior as our Redeemer. 2 Nephi 9 – Jacob testifies of the Atonement. 2 Nephi 31–33 – Nephi teaches the doctrine of Christ. Enos – Enos experiences the power of the Atonement. Mosiah 2–5 – King Benjamin teaches of Christ. Mosiah 12–16 – Abinadi gives his life in testifying of Jesus Christ. Alma 5, 7 – Alma testifies of the Savior. Alma 17–22 – Lamanites receive the testimony of Jesus Christ. Alma 34 – Amulek testifies of the Atonement. Alma 36 – Alma experiences the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Alma 40–42 – Alma testifies of the resurrection and Atonement. Helaman 5 – Nephi and Lehi are instruments in God’s hands to witness of the Savior. 3 Nephi 9–10 – The Savior invites people to come to Him. 3 Nephi 11–18 – The Savior teaches the Nephites of the Father and of His doctrine. 3 Nephi 27 – The Savior teaches His gospel. Ether 3 – The brother of Jared sees the Savior. Ether 12 – Ether and Moroni testify of the Savior and the power of His Atonement. Moroni 7–8 – Mormon teaches of the pure love of Christ and His Atonement. Moroni 10 – Moroni invites all to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. Also, the Bible contains a prophecy concerning the coming forth of The Book of Mormon in these latter days: About 600 B.C. God commanded the tribes of Israel to keep two scriptural histories rather than one as they had done in the past. The “Stick of Judah” (the Bible record) was still to be kept by the tribe of Judah, but the new record, the “Stick of Ephraim”, was to be kept by the tribe of Joseph. Thus, God also referred to it as the “Stick of Joseph”. This new record was soon hidden from world when the Prophet Lehi and a small group from the tribe of Joseph were led by God to the Western Hemisphere. However, God declared to the Prophet Ezekiel that he would bring it forth to be joined with the Stick of Judah prior to the gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the latter days. Thus, God said these sacred records “shall become one in mine hand” (Ezekiel 37:15-21. Also see 2 Nephi 3:12 in the Book of Mormon). It will be interesting to see if all I get is hate speech and ranting in return this time. Actively campaigning against gay marriage may be ‘intolerance’ to you but that is your issue. I would suggest that you campaign for gay marriage instead of launching ad hominem attacks against those you disagree with. That is under-handed. Exactly. What kind of person would spend any kind of effort to convince people that their religion is wrong? What is this country coming to? Just the other day I got a knock on the door from two guys in white shirts and ties who were there to tell me that their church was the only true church on earth. Props on the wonderful life! More power to you for your strong faith. I’m not Mormon but I applaud anyone who has such faith. It’s a shame that so many are concerned with such petty things (like labels) and cannot bask in the light of their faith. I would never dream of proving your faith wrong! Merely pointing out that is not the equivalant of another. 1. Mormonism is extremism. There has been a tradition of demonizing all other religions since the church’s founding. In the Book of Mormon we read: “Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the who** of all the earth” 1 Nephi 14:10 Mormons teach that all other religions are led by the devil. This has been upheld by Mormon prophets and apostles since Joseph Smith. A more contemporary apostle had this to say of other religions: “What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power? …It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel …It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts” – Bruce McConkie How is Mormonism to be respected by anyone outside of the religion when abhorrent statements like these are left to stand? These attitudes of elitism and arrogance make common ground between members of other churches and Mormonism impossible to find. 2. All too often, the Mormon church has found itself on the wrong side of history. They were firmly against the civil rights movement and they battled the ERA ammendment in the 80s. More recently, they exercised their political might to deny homosexuals the right to marry. To this day, the church does not allow women to occupy any of the top leadership roles (General Authorities). Women weren’t even allowed to speak in their bi-annual meetings until the 80s. At the last General Conference, only two women spoke in the public meetings of the conference over the 8 hours of instruction. the remaing 20+ talks were given by men. To say that women’s voices are equally valued in the Mormon church is absolutely false. 3. The Mormon church makes no apology for their racist past and continues to endorse the notion that dark skin is a curse. The Book of Mormon is littered with the notion that God places a dark skin as a curse for unrighteousness. A recent Mormon prophet claimed that he observed that Indian children placed in Good Mormon homes often were lighter than their brothers and sisters on the reservation. The Mormon Church makes no apology for this extremely racist notion. It’s my opinion that the Mormon church has earned the negative image most Americans have of the church. Polls tend to suggest that the more people learn of the Mormon church and their history, the less likely they are to have a positive opinion of them. Not only up to Nevada but also up to the other members of the United States Senate from all over America. Pretty obvious you do not care he is a Mormon. Probably third most powerful person in politics. Amazing a Mormon can be in such a position…. I think you would be right the Evangelical Right would make fun of his religion. I am not sure just because they would do it that it makes it O.K. for you or any one else to. I’m always happy to explain why Mitt’s religion elicits so much negativity.This certainly isn’t to say that belonging to this religion should disqualify and individual for office. Never have I argued that Harry Reid and the additional 14 Mormon members of congress should be disqualified because of their professed religion. The question was asked why negative opinions of Mormonism Linger. According to polls, this negativity is increasing. The Pew Research center did a study on American’s opinion of Mormonism in 2007. A subsequent study was done this year. Here are the numbers from the Pew Study in 2007: % of People saying they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon: 36.8 – Evangelical Christians 20.9 – Christian (non evangelical) 21.5 – Non-Religious 29.6 – Conservatives 21.3 – Moderates 27.6 – Liberals This data has changed according to a very recent study by David T Smith(2012): % of People saying they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon: 33.6 – Evangelical Christians 27.1 – Christian (non evangelical) 40.9 – Non-Religious 31.6 – Conservatives 31.7 – Moderates 42.7 – Liberals Mitt Romney’s candidacy has brought Mormonism out into the open. It seems that the more people learn of Mormonism, the less likely they are to have a positive opinion of it. 1. The anti-Mormonism and general theophobia of those of you on the Left is certainly extreme – much more so than the behavior of modern Mormons. And as far as ‘demonizing all other religions’ what are you doing with regards to Mormonism? Can you say hypocrisy? 2. As far as being on the wrong side of history, you once again should take a look at your own ideology. Bigotry certainly is on the wrong side of history, and anti-religion bigotry in general and anti-Mormon bigotry specifically is alive and well today. Especially among those of the Left. Berkinstock bigotry is still bigotry, regardless if its perpetrators are the supposed ‘progressive’ ones. It just makes it that much more hypcritical. 3. It is true that the Mormon church has a racist past – just like that of just about EVERY institution in American history save abolishionist themselves. It is true they were late in changing their ways. However, it is not true that the current Mormon church is racist. I just sat in on a talk by a Mormon who happens to be black. He travels to various LDS wards around the country and speaks about blacks in the Mormon church. He emphasized that that the Mormon church has racism in its past (and again, as do Catholics and Protestants) and spoke with some specificity. Now, if the Mormon church allows him, and even encourages him, to do this does that sound like the Mormon church today is racist? I suggest you make an effort to get past your own bigotry. Then maybe Mormons may evoke a more positive image in your own mind. The only thing that matters is that the racist writings are still in the Mormon Scriptures and still used in Mormon churches. Until the church apologies and at the very least adds some kind of church document that supersedes the original racist scriptures, Mormon church members are not fit for public office. I am so very pleased to see this wonderful discussion going on and I think Ken Dahl hits several nails on the head. But I think that the most telling thing is Mitt Romney’s refusal to discuss his faith with reporters. He has said that is faith is the most important thing in his life and that he would govern as President by using principles extolled by his faith. One has to wonder why he thinks questioning what all that means is appropriate. I can only guess that it is because he knows that it would keep him from the Whitehouse. He is in essence saying that Mormonism is what defines him as a person and then follows that by saying he won’t talk about it because it is a private matter. I don’t think so. If his belief is so deep and Mormonism is the answer to the great questions of existence why is he not trumpeting that all over the country. He did it in France when he was on his required “mission” as a young man spending two years trying to convert the French. Now he is silent. That cannot be acceptable. Religion is only important when it can help someone get elected, as it significantly helped Rick Santorum. Romney knows it will hurt him to talk about it openly so he doesn’t discuss his faith. Typically the church teaches that God > Everything (including family), but apparently that doesn’t apply to politics: Politics > God > Everything else. This is not a ‘wonderful discussion’. It is better characterized as cheap shots against Mormons and Mormonism. As I have been telling everyone I know, its just a matter of time before the bigoted narrow-minded Left starts attacking Romney’s Mormonism. And here we are. Mormons are not perfect but with the bigotry demonstrated in these threads neither are you. “Scholar” Cristine Hutchison-Jones says, “No one has been more aggressive about prosecuting polygamists in this country in the 20th and 21st century than Mormons.” That’s not a very “scholarly” thing to say. (1) Mormons can’t prosecute ANYONE in their capacity as a Mormon. The government enforces the law, not “Mormons”. (2) OF COURSE the most polygamists are going to be prosecuted in the hotbed of polygamy. You’re not going to find nearly as many polygamists to prosecute where there aren’t many Mormons. Sounds like real “scholarship” was tossed out the window for this article. Daniel – Don’t need to question it…. just look at the “fruit” that is produced…. 2012 – A new study from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and Indiana University- Latter-day Saints “volunteer and donate significantly more than the average American and are even more generous in time and money than the upper quintile of religious people in America…. When it comes to the time they spend volunteering, the average adult American LDS member contributes as much as seven times more than that of the average American… Self-interest in this group didn’t apply, which goes against all economics principles.” The published findings further indicate that these “prosocial behaviors” are reflective of Latter-day Saint teachings, which emphasize service and charity to others. Among the study’s findings related to Latter-day Saints are the following: • Mormons are among the most devout religious groups in the country. (American Grace, 23-24) • Mormons are among those most likely to keep their childhood faith as adults. (137-138) • Mormons are unusually giving – Collectively Mormons are among the most charitable of Americans with their means and time, both in religious and nonreligious causes. (452) • Mormons are among those most friendly toward those of other faiths, including those outside of Christianity. (505-508) • Mormons are among the most likely to believe that one true religion exists, but are also the most convinced of any group that those outside their faith can “go to heaven” or gain salvation. (535-537 & 546) In 1890 at the time of Utah statehood, 112 YEARS AGO, the LDS Church ( Mormons ) decreed that polygamists would, ever afterward, be subject to church excommunication. This unfairly maligned religion ‘cleaned house’ of polygamy since 1890 to an unprecedented degree, in comparison with other religions along with their religious detractors, largely protestant, yet Big Love, and other programs, continue to perpetuate undeserved myths unfairly regarding Mormons to this day. This is the point that is most important to make in such an article as yours: Polygamists are NOT ALLOWED to be Mormons, as of 1890. There is no such thing anymore, and for a VERY LONG TIME, as an apostate polygamist Mormon. That is why polygamists groups had to leave. After 1890, polygamists had to set up entirely different groups / churches, like the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” headed by Warren Jeff’s, now in jail. Mormons are at the forefront of prosecuting polygamists, so this denigrating myth is far worse, for far longer than for most groups trying to emerge from bigotry. I read an article which researched numbers of polygamists in various religions before several states came into the U.S., such as when Utah renounnced polygamy in order to become a state in 1890, and discovered that Baptists were listed as having 5% of their respective members being polygamist, vs. 2-3% of Mormons being polygamists. This is if you count total male polygamists. If you count families, 2 to 3% translates into 20 to 30% of families affected in some way by polygamy in the family. I can think of no other religion with more widely held myths which turn out to be lies, that are believed by more people, currently, regarding what they believe, than the Mormons, meaning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This name indicates that the Church is named for followers of Jesus Christ. People mostly have to live outside Utah to hear, “Are you a Mormon?” rather than “Are you LDS?”. At least the public should be aware that Mormons are followers of Christ. They, themselves, believe that only through the grace of the Lord God Jesus Christ can mankind be saved. There was a Baptist that said Mormonism was a cult because Mormons didn’t believe in being saved by grace, which is totally false. The ‘cult” word name-calling toward Mormons, is another form of bigotry that should have gone the way of the ‘Frito Banditio” in regard to Latinos. This word is still commonly used perjoratively and with bigotry just to make a new or otherwise “picked on’ religion sound ‘bad’, making an association that makes the maligned group sound freaky, like groups whose members end up committing mass suicide. t’s true that there is an academic college term for a ‘temple cult’, which applies to groups such as Jews or Mormons, who erect temples, but this would need to be pointed out, otherwise, it becomes a ‘catch all’ term denoting bigotry, according to the dictionary definition, which definition can be construed to mean just about any maligned religion, not just a new religion. You are right,there are many very recent programs, still, such as September Dawn, filled with factual errors, made in order to make Mormons sound bad, meaning it was filmed for bigoted purposes. Another program recently that I saw about polygamy on TV was about a group which had nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but the program threw in an unfounded statement,, long since refuted, about the founder of the LDS Church as the sole reference to the LDS Church in the whole program, saying that Joseph Smith was an adulterer who started a Church in 1830. The more you learn, the more impossible this statement turns out to be. There have been a couple of children who have had written evidence, and even whose DNA, has been traced back to other fathers than Joseph Smith in years since, that were attributed to Joseph Smith Jr. just to slam him a in the100+ years after his death. Harry Reid and Mitt Romney are both Mormons. Like Catholics, they neither show signs of being in lockstep with the leader of their Church, any more than JFK. Surely as a seminary teacher you should know that Mormonism isn’t called a “cult” because the LDS church is focused around temples. It’s because of the way the religion operated in its founding years, through fear, intimidation, psychological control and xenophobia. Read up on the lives of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Both of them, especially the latter, shared the same sort of sociopathic narcissism displayed by Jim Jones and David Koresh, who were likewise cult founders. To be fair, many religions, possibly most, started out as “cults.” Today, the LDS church has modified some of its more outrageous teachings, such as polygamy and racism, so I suppose it probably is more a “religion” than “cult,” depending on how you want to define such things. You say that September Dawn has factual errors. What are they? Can you name ONE? The historical context is fully supported by serious historians. Try Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadow Massacre; Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets; and Sally Denton, American Massacre. The last is written by a Mormon. The difference between such serious historians and the version you get from mormons.org and other LDS sources is that the LDS church relies on “official church records” that they will not permit outsiders to examine (and which probably don’t exist.) The huge gap between the objective evidence and the LDS spin on things is why, as Walter S. points out above, the more people learn about Mormonism, the less favorably they feel towards it. I look forward to an election season in which the American public learns the evidence-based history of the LDS Church. Xenophobia? Don’t make us laugh! You would probably die with your Birkenstocks on or at least pass out if you found your self on a street in Salt Lake City or Provo! Ha ha. Mormons have much more to be afraid of with the likes of you than vice versa. Why does it matter again? I’m sure we can dig up bad things on any religion and start spewing them out at each other like a mud fight. But that just leaves everyone dirty and upset. If we’re focusing so much on the negative aspects of another religion or just what we don’t like about it and what we think is wrong with it, then we’re spending too much time not trying to become Christ, quite the opposite in fact. There’s quite a difference between trying to share your religion because it makes you happy, and trying to belittle and attack another because you don’t like it. I dislike Mormonism for a variety of reasons, the chief one being it’s politically manifested obsession with denying equal rights to gays and lesbians. When Romney was Governor of Mass., he actually stood with a crowd in front of the State House, chanting, “Let the people vote”, in regards to same sex marriage. I could care less if Mormons think they can “convert” dead people to their faith while wearing “celestial underwear” or whatever – all religions have odd aspects to them – but the political intrusion of a church, AS a church, into the secular sphere, is deserving of every suspicion. Just one question… and please do reply… Why in the heck is religion a part of politics ever!? Who cares if Romney is Mormon! His beliefs should not effect his policies. If religion really was seperate from state, our country would be a lot less backwards. Seriously, neglecting religion of course, is there any actual reason gays can’t get married? Seriously, gimme a reason. Anyone else agree as to the seperation of church and state part? Exactly. It shouldn’t. The first religion ever became a real issue with the presidency was JFK, and no one cared Nixon was a Quaker. Huckabee made sure Romney’s religion was a problem in 2008, Republicans made sure Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a problem in 2008, and in 2012, Democrats are going to make sure Romney’s religion is still a problem. The world ought to be concerned about a Mormon like Mitt Romney becoming a puppet for the church in Salt Lake. Some posters have made claims about separating politics and religion but the LDS church and its followers have made VERY clear in documented recent cases that most mormons, Mitt Romney included, are suspect in positions that permit them to impose laws tailored to THEIR morality. Let’s look at a couple LDS church examples of interest: Tax-free, this $40 billion dollar LDS political machine involves itself readily in politics, as it coordinated anti-gay efforts in California (proposition 8) and then again in another country, Argentina (failed, and tried to hide its involvement, some say). These groups aggressively proselytize with success in less educated countries, and their tax-free machine gets as involved as it can in the affairs of others. And there is a financial manipulativeness as well…..Joseph Smith was one of the first to dump his religious-proseltyzing costs on the American taxpayer, and the Mormons of today are not so different. Utah was the state with the highest average of bankruptcies in the early 2000s, continuing in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. And Mormons never need to worry about the debt dump, really: The church has food warehouses and more or less a complete welfare system. The system shamelessly hides its finances, too– a recent Business Week article lambasted the LDS church for its evasiveness about its finances. It’s unsurprising that Romney is much the same since they both manipulate the American system. A gay Ex-Mormon in Central America told me over dinner that, in a word, Mormons are “calculating”, and not in an especially good way. The intrusion into the morality of others is obvious, and the Mormons would love to have a good religious pawn in the struggle to impose restriction on others’ lives. One bizarre and perfect recent example: A sex education ban in Utah schools recently SAILED through the Utah Mormon legislature (70% Mormon, a theocracy, really), paying absolutely NO heed to research that shows the value of public sex education. The dogma of the area is very evident and clearly represented in government laws. A likely reason the governor vetoed the bill: The move would have been viewed as too extreme with a Mormon on the national ticket this year. There must be half a dozen other examples of the secretive mormons that cause one to be concerned about one as president. In yet another example, bigger incarcerated populations directly benefit the business of private prison companies, some of which are from Utah (surprise). Moral mandates imposed in govt PLUS the bonus of federal funds for more privatized incarceration. And people wonder why the Utah economy has been improving recently LOL There are many concerns here about Romney and the Mormons, and the real dangers of a rich ideologue candidate should not minimized by the public. Occasionally a Harry Reid or JFK appears that does a good job of separating church and state but this is not the case here. This article carefully timed for maximum effect is a deliberate distraction from the DISASTER of the Obama administration and the ruin they are bringing to this once great nation! We don’t give a DAMN that Romney is Mormon if he promises to balance the budget! We care deeply that Obama is a socialist, communist, Muslim sympathizer, and believer in Black Liberation Theology, and hell-bent on bankrupting this country! Talk about scary dogma! Don’t change the subject! This is likely true for all religions eh? I suspect in a Christian-dominated country, most voters will not feel this way, but as a non-Christian who’s lived in the “Bible-belt”, I can easily say that we were very afraid of Christians! Mostly those who wore their church “uniforms” and went from house to house literally yelling that we are going to hell, and other similar rubbish. I do not want to rehash all my terrible memories here; just trying to make a point (I think) that fear can be attributed to anything in the right (wrong?) conditions. Missouri once had a law legalizing the killing of Mormons, the only such law in American history. Maybe you should do some research before you attack a religious system which helps many.people find a path in life Hi There! I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or in other words, a Mormon. I am also a BU grad student. I appreciate Rich Barlow’s article and I also appreciate all of the comments, both positive and negative. I think any attention to the church is good attention, because it allows people to ask questions and find answers. Though I don’t know yet who I’ll vote for in the presidential race, I do know that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. I know that all that is unfair and wrong about life can be reconciled through His atonement. I know that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ that tells us more about Him. God has not left us alone to figure these things out. He has given us prayer to find answers. Websites, books, and people can provide many opinions and answers, but let’s not forget who the ultimate source of answers is–God. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense… When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 11. I am LDS, and I haven’t always been, but I think there is a clear answer to why so many people are misinformed and very aggressive in their beliefs towards the Church as a whole. I would not believe that I was part of the true Church of Jesus Christ if everyone in this world agreed with us. “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.” – Luke 6:22 Most ignorant people coming out against this Church are only solidifying my testimony of this gospel. Joseph Smith was told that “that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” I am a learned Jewish woman, but have always been a seeker of the spiritual. I have gone through many a Christian inquiry at all different denominations of churches. They all have one thing in common….They all believe that their own church is the “real” one. Especially the Catholics..although they do have the longest chain of historical relation to Jesus. The Amish are the only people in my opinion that live by example and don’t have to go around converting and baptizing and bible thumping and this and that…. maybe some Bruderhoff, Mennonites or Hutterites as well. The Anabaptists seem to be more mild mannered. I think G-d works in mysterious ways. There are enough spiritual paths for everyone. G-d, in my opinion is not so narrow as to only provide one path to life. In every part of the world he opens doors to different peoples at different times. It’s truly a futile question to ask what is the true church? I do not believe there is a true anything. All of religion pretty much relies on faith essentially. We were not there 4,000, 2000, or in the year 1830 to see if Joseph Smith really got those tablets. Faith is a gift from a higher place. It makes people calm and happy to have hope. I believe it comes in many forms. Imagine if there were no such thing as faith or hope and man only had his intellectual faculties to make heartfelt, emotional or spiritual decisions. No one would believe in anything they could not see. There would have been no Abraham…no beginning. Only visual idols. People make G-d much more complicated than I am sure He is meant to be… religion has lost its battle in europe, drugs, prostitution and education have won. and they do not have the problems that we in the us have. there is no name, item or situation in the bible or book of mormon that fits the time period.there was no alphabet with the symbols to produce the sounds, we do not translate names the sound would stay the same. they did not exsist! faith and belief violate the basic laws of education by not being fact, and are not allowed in asia or europe. The church of jesus christ of latter day saints is different than the fundamentilist church of jesus christ. First is the fact of poligamy, WE DON’T Practice it! We are christians, just with a few extra books to boot. We also have 1 God. We are alowed to learn, and if you read our scriptures it actually encorages seeking knowledge. I believe my church is true not just for the sake of believing, but because this feeling I get when I pray, read my scriptures, go to church, follow Christ’s example, and it makes you smile and feel like you are loved, It is the holy ghost, and that is why our church is true. Most things you read about mormons are very misleading; if you want real information try mormon.org. it is made by mormons, so no lies. Really, we mormons are just a church, the true church, but we are real and have more proof than most churches. I am not saying that your church isn’t true, just that it isn’t the whole truth. And try missionaries, they spend 2 years on a mission to teach, to explain our church. Bye, and we are not a cult. Hello,I want to say something. Do not waste time on anti gay marriage. Because the hope is Jesus Christ, the Bible. It says our bodies is not for fornication. When we die, we go heaven. There is no sex in heaven. That’s it. I grew up Mormon. I was told several times a week that if i went against the teachings of this organization that I would not be able to be with my family after this lifetime on earth. These ideas were too much for me before the age of 8, when I was baptized and made a member. I went through the motions as most 8 year old children might, as to not want to upset the rest of the family unit, or spend the afterlife in eternal damnation. I found out it was too late and the hell is actually here on earth now. This is how it feels to know the judgments cast by the family on anyone family member who chooses to have their own ideas. This organization uses evil fears, judgement, and guilt to manipulate it’s members from birth through the family unit. Suicide starts to sound pretty good to those who have been judged, shamed, and disrespected by their family as a whole for eternity. That’s me. We aren’t even close to having all the answers these organizations claim to have. What’s right and wrong is born and learned each new day. The great message to be learned from the teachings of Jesus Christ is to love one another without judging, or trying to force your ideas upon them. That’s it folks. Evil manipulators have used these great writings to deceive vast numbers with the devil hiding in the several details that differentiate the organizations. I will not dignify any of these groups as a Religion. A social disease has afflicted our better judgement, and courage to find the truth and knowledge in our daily lives. I’m 17 years old just sayin and Ive beeen laughing my butt off because of how rediculous most of you sound fighting about mormonism. Its their religon. Someday we will see what is right if thats what your worried about! Love eachother! Grow up! No matter what religion any of you believe in let this go. With all my heart not only with these comments and most other websites about things like this, let it go. Thank goodness this article was fairly balanced. The majority of people do not bother to do research for themselves about anything, regardless of the subject. Sad. And it is sad that people would rather have an adulterer who lied to his wife as U.S. President over a Mormon. The ignorance and bigotry is mind boggling. The majority of negative information on Mormons is a caricature of Mormonism. And why are the Mormons the only ones who are treated this way? No other religion whether it be Christian or nonChristian is attacked and treated the way the Mormons are treated in the U.S. What is appalling is there are so called Christians who make a living lying about and attacking Mormons and only Mormons. There is a Baptist church in Texas that teaches, in 2014, that Blacks are cursed with the curse of Cain, and say all people who are not Caucasion are inferior, and use the Bible to defend their hate. So where is the “Christian” outcry over this church’s racism? Silence, but yet these same silent people bring up the Mormons racist PAST. Hypocrisy at its finest. Why do these racist so called Christians get a free pass for their racist beliefs? Why do Pastors and Ministers who behave badly get a free pass? This is why this country is going in the sewer. Christians refuse to confront their own past and behavior because it is easier to ignore it and make someone else the scapegoat. Actually, many people were aware Mitt Romney was a Mormon, but I was pleased to see that it was not brought up during the campaign. Rather, Mr. Romney’s stand on the issues was the major part of the campaign. There is a Baptist church in Texas that teaches, in 2014, that Blacks are cursed with the curse of Cain, and say all people who are not Caucasion are inferior, and use the Bible to defend their hate. So where is the “Christian” outcry over this church’s racism? Silence, but yet these same silent people bring up the Mormons racist PAST. Hypocrisy at its finest. I met a big group of Mormons they were heck since the children were so polite and respectful if any of you have seen meet the Mormons it’s a pretty cool movie I think people should get to know Mormons before making a judgment the send there kids at 18! To teach there religion to the world I hear there sent as far as Africa if you ask me Mormons are the most amazing people I’ve ever met What Mormon teach about the birth of a handicapped Child and minorities especially in third world countries “This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valient, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations….” (Decisions for Successful Living pp 164-165) TLDP: 497 “There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165). To everyone out there reading this!!!! Please with outmost respect….. Find out the truth before you start judging the LDS church.. why jump in and say stuff when you are not even close to the truth…. better to find out and confirm than to hurt other people’s feelings too. thank you, a person from the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints Mormons don’t have “magical underwear or garments”. It’s just regular undergarments. Also the undergarments don’t show that we have a full fellowship to the church. When Mormons get babtized they are officially members of the church. The undergarment thing is false. Also before you downshoot my comment take a look at Mormon.org for real information about mormons. I am mormon so this stuff is credible. This is wrong. Your religion should be something your allowed to believe in, not “why we`re afraid of Mormons.” We are good people that don’t need the negative input from others. I don’t know why you people choose to criticize others based on their beliefs, as we’re not doing it back.(If anyone is, at least not openly online). And by the way, we don’t have,”special undergarments” that are considered religious. I find this offensive as there was a good chance we didn’t do anything to you. From research and personal experience as a non-Mormon female, I can tell you I can now smell the underwear of these gold-grubbing, power-hungry, sneaky bastards in this cult called Mormonism. LDS doctors are taking down the “undesirables” by prescribing Seroquel, the most dangerous drug out there today. I’m going to start by saying I voted for Romney. After spending 6 years in show low, AZ as a non Mormon I would not vote for a Mormon in the future. The stereotypes of Mormons are true. I actually didn’t even realize there were stereotypes for them until I moved here, but anything you have heard is most likely true. They still believe in polygamy. They don’t openly say it. Many do not marry more then one woman anymore because Mormonism is about perception. They would if they thought they could get away with it. Their church still teaches it will be polygamous in heaven. They teach their religion, polygamy and all, in the schools here. They network and use fear and isolation techniques to force convertions. They will even attempt to destroy your reputation and business by blatantly lying if they need to. They have rules not because they obide by them, but because they want to hold others accountable and have reasons to destroy them. People here are afraid to have a beer in public. They don’t tell the truth about their religion. Mormonism is not centered on Christ. They don’t believe they are different then Christ. They believe we all pre existed as Christ did – we have the same spirit father. We all came to earth as did Jesus. What’s different about Jesus is that they believe God the Father is a man with a body and came to earth and had sex with Mary who is also is spirit daughter. They marry their relatives here. It’s perfectly normal. They aren’t Christian. Being a Christian has meaning. They do not believe they were created. They believe they pre existed. When they say created, they mean Heavenly Father and heavenly mother had sex and created them. They are gods. It took 6 years to figure this stuff out because they aren’t open and honest. exactly is “where”? Because im going to state something very clear: “Culture”. We are not Mormons. Thats a name that given back in the 1800s by those who persecuted them. Yes, there was polygamy that was banished from the church. Ones who didnt accept that left the Church and created their own “branches”. And there are a lot of polygamist mormons out there who call themselves mormons that are not even affiliated with the “main stream” Church. And if they are actual members from the main stream and they are doing these things including polygamy its because they can be excommunicated from the Church for such. You really shouldn’t judge the Church just because there are others out there that are being disobedient and not being a good example of Christ. Members of any church are imperfect. Like i knew a baptist and also a catholic who both ended up being a child molester, and a church of christ member who beat his daughter and his wife. (my great grandfather) So the thing is every church has imperfect members. and if i think that “where” is Utah well it’s more than likely culture based. Many out in Utah unfortunately has many members that do things so differently and wrong that to me it’s uncalled for. Im sorry for you having to see that around you, because i can assure a lot of us are definitely not like taht at all. So, even here in alabama the states doesnt even have a tolerance for people drinking publically outside unless your like at your home or some ones house out in the county limits outside as long as your not breaking laws. What parent really wants their kids to see people drinking or getting drunk on the street in a city. i mean i wouldnt. they are not old enough to understand what is going on or to learn about stuff like that. to kids thats scarry to see stuff like that. So what if the schools teach it. Here is alabama religion, polygamy, all you can think of is taught within history books and computers, as well as cultural classes which includes that. you got to understand for one, not all members are like what you see. and what youve learned they really didn’t go into anything on it which left you hangin. some things are sacred and personally cant be explained like you would like them to be explained to you. Like a person’s baptism, only that person who was baptized knows exactly what they experienced, therefore no one can get the full story. That doesn’t make them wrong. also many of us tend to be a little hesistant because sometimes what we believe in causes friendship loss. Many of us members who are converts know that what we believe in to be true and some have been disowned by their own family for it… a lot of us members out here in the southern states have more of a soft spot for people who are curious because we once were and we know what it feels like to be on the other end, where as many are born from families who have always been members since the 1800s so they really dont understand. But i know that actual members of the main stream do not marry relatives unless they are seriously keeping it secret. in fact its prohibited. The church believes in follow the laws of the land. and it sounds to me that those are members that those are fundamentalist mormons and im sure there are members who continue to be of the main stream and just do what they want even if its prohibited. And the reason i would know that is because i am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My grandfather was a methodist. and i lived with him after my grandmother passed away and he allowed me to talk to missionaries. He told me “What makes a christian a christian is allowing others to use their agency and choose for themselves like the Savior allows all of us too.” I asked him “what if i choose to be baptized?” He said, “As long as it brings you closer to Jesus Christ and His father thats all that matters”. For some members, they draw themselves away, for many members it draws us closer to our Savior Jesus Christ. It all depends on the person’s choices they make, not the Church. So, if you have any questions about the church the best people to ask are the fulltime missionaries. I can assure you even if you have no intention of being baptized they will still help you to understand what you dont understand. trust me, i was kicked out of soooo many churches because i kept asking question after question and no one could seem to answer them, none until i met the full time missionaries. i had no intention of becoming a member at all. they never rushed me or pressured, i made that choice for myself. Well anyways i do hope that area gets better. Sounds pretty rough. maybe you should find out if they are from the fundamentalists or main stream. If main stream i would contact Church head quarters as people call it and report what you have witnessed. Because they arent suppose to be doing stuff like that at all. As an anti-theist, I’m grateful for Mormonism as the quintessential example of people’s gullibility. If we are all to accept without question the translated word (Book of Mormon,) what possible reason could God have for killing anyone (except Joseph Smith) for seeing the untranslated word? Gold Tablets? They should be at the Smithsonian! To accept Mormonism, Catholicism, any of the Protestant denominations, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Daoism, Witchcraft, Pagan rituals, New Age-ism, Astrology, Palm Reading, or tea leaf sediment is to tacitly admit that you’ve failed to analyze the much more likely physical phenomenon which constitute our universe. Paraphrasing Thoreau, ‘to speak of heaven, you disrespect earth!” “The average Mormon spends something like 20 hours per week in activities at their local congregation.” No, no, no, that’s not true. 3 (now 2) hours on Sunday and maybe a couple hours during the week if you have a calling requiring it, but even that I wouldn’t say was the “average”. 20 would be ridiculous. Maybe a Bishop would spend 10ish, but that is definitely not the norm for your average member. I am a Mormon and we never said we have gay marriage or We hate people who are gay we just don’t believe in gay marriage I have many friends who are gay and I have actually brought them to church with no problem so before you get all rude check your facts because we are not bad at all also did anyone notice that in any of these comments no Mormons have said anything bad about anyone else’s religions Thought it would be ok to comment on here. just for public since its under same topic Yeah im a Bisexual member and live in the South. I was always welcomed with open arms. I cant say there isnt a single person who doesnt agree with a person being that way, but i was never hated up or left out. I feel a person who gay in some form who is a member or investigating will find themselves in a battle. A lot of us can’t help the way we feel, but like me i chose to follow my Savior Jesus Christ. i know for myself, that heavenly Father knows that many of us are given such hard challenges with out identity but Jesus Christ helps me remember exactly who i am. And that keeps me on the straight and narrow. I guess being Bi is one of the easier ones i guess because it means you like both male and female. But after i found my husband, that was all i wanted. And how ironic that i ended up with a husband who had similar issues right? It’s amazing how God works to help balance out our challenges and turn it from something so challenging and sometimes bad to something so wonderful and good. We have been married 6 years and have been eternal companions for 4 year of those years. So like she said, gays are not hated upon, and there is no gay marriages. Mine and my husbands was totally different. i married a man, not a woman. and he married a woman not a man, that doesnt make ours a gay marriage. Um first of all Mormons are Christians too, we just believe in more things such as the Book of Mormon. And now we prefer to be called “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or LDS for short because it further explains what we believe in. We believe in the bible too guys. And calling us a cult instead of a religion is so disrespectful and complete crap. Also, the “Book of Mormon” musical thing that was on Broadway is completely inaccurate and a little offensive too. Don’t believe everything you see or read about a religion. Especially, when watching a play that basically mocks a religion. It does not represent LDS at all. As for LDS people running for office, people shouldn’t judge a person based on their religion. It’s stupid to not consider someone because of race, religion, sex, ect. And as for people who think we believe in “magic” underwear. Hate to tell you, no I don’t, we don’t think they’re freaking magic. They represent something very important. They’re not just fabric. So, get your facts straight and stop listening and spreading lies about the LDS church. If you really want to know about the LDS religion, go to our website and not one full of crap from people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Please and thank you. I am a committed member of The Church of Jesus Christ. I decide for myself who I feel best represents my views for America. I do not feel that Mitt Romney is right for the country. I will NOT vote for him. Is it really that bad out there? Im a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here in alabama. I keep hearing that from even members. If what i keep hearing is true, then people need to travel, because A LOT of us are definitely not like that at all. I feel sorry for people who are having to witness members being like that. Now that makes since when i had visited a friend there how when i gave so views and ideas on stuff we were talking about in church class many of the women just stared at me like i was an idiot lol. Many people made fun of my accent, which really is not southern believe it or not. The culture is indeed way different and unusual and many made me feel like i didnt belong because i wasnt from around there. So i can imagine what it must feel like for people who arent even members. See like here we are very friendly and hospitable. we and other families like holding dinners, get togethers etc etc and we love it when somebody is new around for company. anyone can come to church here, whether you are a smoker, drinker or just someone whos curious but doesnt intend on becoming a member etc. Church is about bringing ourselves and others closer to Jesus Christ and learning more about Him etc etc. We arent here to judge another. and we love talking and singing. well i hope it does get better out there…I can see now why Church leaders out there are concerned about members out there… i was always taught by my parents who are not members, “if you cant see the good in the world, Be the good in the world that others can be around.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint is simply a religion. It means much more to others. But you can’t judge people because of what they believe in. You should judge them off of how you know them. The way they act, etc. What members believe in shouldn’t involve them getting judged. We should be able to believe in whatever we want. It hurts deeply to know that there are people still out there against ‘Mormonism’. We deserve better. Every Mormon I every met was a super nice person. I dated a Mormon about 20 years ago and I did not care for the fact that I was not allowed in the Temple for her brother’s wedding but I respect it even though I didn’t like missing the wedding. Great article. Thanks for the information and good topic. If you get a chance, check out http://calcriminaldefenselawyers.com Cheers. Dave. To the person who wrote this article, you have a lot to learn about when it comes to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, their beliefs, the Church in general etc. A LOT! For one they are not called Mormons. None participate in polygamy. those are the fundamentalist mormons or any off-branched from the Main stream church. every church has a history. many have bad history. Members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints are very good people. Ive seen for myself that many live with high standards, morals and very good values and they actually live what they believe in verses many i have seen live who are members of other churches. This church is not a cult at all. many of yall are scared of it because its not like a church that people have labeled as norm churches. Where do you get that you can say they are not chrisians? Infact i remember reading that Christ said all who believe in him and follow his commandents are his followers etc etc. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, and follows his example and commandments and endures that till the end are indeed Christian. Out of so many people i have known from many sects, they to me have been the only ones except for a few others who has shown me they actually live what they believe far beyond just church services. They are indeed followers of Christ because He is exactly who they follow and worship. They have made me want to be a better christian. They at least lead by example. No man is perfect. no man, no preacher, no priest, no bishop, not a single member of any church can sit there and claim they hold perfection when they too are no different. All i hear is you saying the same thing the men were saying about the woman who committed adultery, when Jesus Christ said “he who is without sin, cast a stone”. people from other religions need to embrace the ones who do indeed believe in Jesus Christ. Just because some may believe in something different that you are unfamiliar with doesnt give you a right to disown a religion that is indeed worthy to be called followers of Jesus Christ. That’s not you decision to may. And it is not your duty either to say they are wrong. we are to get to know our brothers and sisters in Christ because of Jesus Christ. So again you really dont know what a “Mormon” as you call it, really is. They believe in Jesus Christ, They believe in God and in the Holy Spirit, they believe in eternal weddings not just earthly weddings till death parts it. They believe in the strengthening of families units which this world is sorely lacking in. Infact, their Church president is actually the one who came up with the procedure for open heart surgery. If you have hatred towards them and have a vendetta about disproving them to be non christians, then maybe you yourself need to take a good look at what you call yourself, because that definitely is not what Jesus Christ would do. He loved all and cared for all and he welcomed all to Him. Peace! Hi there! So first of all, I would like to say, I myself am LDS (a Latter-Day Saint) and think you (the one replying before me) have misinterpreted. The writer was saying that others thought it was a cult, others think those. He was stating opinions. Second, yes, while there are no current polygamists, (as far as I know), it is not explicitly ‘banned’. If the Lord commands it, it happens. You (who I am speaking to) are assuming that this person wrote this because he thinks that. He was simply stating widespread assumptions. And, don’t go off about the nickname. Yes, we don’t use it anymore, but we did when this was written. When a perceived oddity is backed by Mormon money or growing political clout, the left gets jumpy. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and HBO’s Bill Maher have resorted to caricature, stereotyping and hyperbole in their anti-Mormon attacks. Liberals were outraged by Mormon financing of Proposition 8, the 2008 ban on same-sex marriage in California. They scoff at Mormonism’s all-male priesthood and ask why church leaders have yet to fully repudiate the racist teachings of previous authorities. A little bit about me: I am 14 years old. I am a girl. I am a mormon, but our official name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. We do not practice polygamy anymore, and I promise you we are NOT a cult. We ARE christian. I REALLY have a testimony of this church. They teach us to be the best people that we can be and to help those around us. I have felt the Holy Ghost many times. It is the strongest but at the same time most peaceful feeling you can get. I love the church and everyone in it. We are very family centered, and we believe in the Bible as well as another book called the Book of Mormon. The Bible was there to help people of the past, but the Book of Mormon is here to help us NOW. I am SO glad that I am a member of this church. It gives me so much hope. My little brother died of a very rare disease called ttc7a deficiency. He was the one of the first 15 people to ever get it on the planet. We had to go to Cincinnati Children’s hospital. (we live in Missouri, so it was pretty far) Then, my little sister Eliza was born with the same thing. She lived almost to the age of 4 years old, and my brother to a year old. Every Friday, me, my older brother, and my dad would leave school early and drive six hours to the hospital to see my mom who stayed there with my sister, and to see my sister. Then, every Sunday, my brother, me and my Dad would make the drive back. Eliza passed away when I was nine, and my brother passed away when I was two I believe. Maybe three…. Losing them, especially my sister was the worst feeling I have ever felt. I was older and saw Eliza much more (and for longer) than Seth. We had the same blood type, and I gave bone marrow transplant for her two times. Each time I was terrified, but it prolonged her life. I am SO glad that we matched and that I was able to get that amazing experience, as well as a very difficult, but unique childhood. It made me stronger is so many ways that I can’t explain. For some reason, they passed away on the SAME day, different years. October 9th. This past year has been really hard for me, and I didn’t have a testimony. I finished the Book of Mormon and then prayed about it. I didn’t get an immediate answer, and to be honest, I was TERRIFIED to see what answer I would get. I remember standing there, sobbing because I thought for a moment, maybe it wasn’t true, and I could never see my siblings again. If you can…. imagine someone you love SO much, and NEVER being able to see them again. It was horrible, like I lost them all over again. But, I got an answer. I soon after got my patriarchal blessing which I read SO much, and it brings me so much happiness. It gives me so much hope and happiness to know that when I die, I will be able to see them in heaven, and be with my family sealed together forever. I KNOW this church is true, and I am so grateful to be in it. If a 14 year old girl can read the Book of Mormon and tell you that it is true, you can. Please don’t make these hurtful comments and READ the Book of Mormon. Pray about it. If you do so, I PROMISE you will discover with your own feelings and experiences that it is true. Growing up a non-Mormon kid in a completely Mormon dominated community I had years of being ostracized, Bullied, even rocks thrown at me on my way to school. Then after several years of essentially being shunned of potential friends, excepted a neighbor’s offer to attend church. Within weeks I was completely accepted and had “Friends”. Later as an adult I came to learn about some of the inner workings of the church. Things like their “job service” and contractual networks where they essentially bypass labor and equal opportunity laws by only hiring within the church. I learned the hard way that, if I there was anyone I needed to be extra cautious in business dealing with that it was typically a member of the church as they seemed to always be able to rationalize their shady behavior more easily than non-member business associates. I left the church as a young adult, very disillusioned by the hypocrisy of the teaching versus real-world experience. Maybe in communities whee LDS members are not the majority and in such complete control, maybe in those places, Mormons are pleasant, loving, and righteous folk. Where I live I have come to truly disdain the LDS religion. It is a messed up cult with a great PR department and a ton of money. Nothing else , @Dana. I am sorry to hear of your experiences growing up with the church. It sounds like you were part of a “cultured” mormon society rather than a religious one. I was different. I came across the church while studying doctrine and desiring to know if the church and Book of Mormon were true. I can assure you it is, but you know that you cannot take my word for it and that it would only work if you desired to know of it yourself and prayed about it. Nevertheless, I can also tell you that growing up in my area of the country, I witnessed a completely different view of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I was not a member and despite my lack of knowledge in the religion, many were loving, accepting and willing to be friends with me, despite not even having an initial desire to join the church. I was of course older, as were the mormons around me, which would relate to the different experiences you had growing up. What I believe you experienced was not that different from many others who grew up in a town where the majority were of a different creed, race, etc. I have witnessed that myself, but not with mormons, but rather other creeds and races. (I will not list them here as it’s not necessary). What you should know, however, is that the church has many times denounced this behavior within our communities. I am recalling multiple general conference talks from memory alone that have spoken to this. What you are going to find is that people will *always* be flawed, so you must look at the church’s doctrines (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, along with other Ensign articles and literature published by the church). I can assure you that what you experienced was not exclusive to your mormon community. There are plenty of people and communities that are *not* mormon who do similar acts. You need to realize that you cannot judge a church based on the faults of men. Even Joseph Smith wrote of that in the intro of the Book of Mormon. Men are imperfect, make mistakes, have bias and prejudices, regardless of creed, race, etc. My point is, before judging any church, research and investigate what people *should* be doing via the church, not what they’re actually doing. The whole point of Christ’s atonement was for every one of us to repent because as the scriptures say we *ALL* have sinned. I can testify to you that I know this church to be true. I have received a witness that I cannot deny and will never deny. It only came after painful investigation, prayer and commitment to follow commandments. Even ones I did not understand initially – and I am now grateful for it. Remember, faith comes *after* your trials, not before. I wish you well in your journey and hope you find peace again in your life. Let people be the way they want to be, if you were gay would you sit here saying how wicked same sex marriage is? If you were a father with daughters, would you tell them that women are to weak the hold the priest hood? If your were a black man in the 1980’s or before, would you agree with the racist belief that black people can’t hold the priesthood, its all about perspective, and if you love everyone, than stop telling them who they have to be to go to heaven and not hell. I’m 13 years old by the way. Yet if its doctrine appears so hospitable to change, why does the church often seem hostile to it? Part of it is the problem of maintaining the integrity of the prophetic voice. If what a past LDS Church leader said can be overturned by subsequent leaders, as has happened numerous times, Mormonism must grapple with the tension between continuity and its relevance for today’s members. Between responding to attitudes that could mean greater inclusiveness—particularly for women and LGBT members—and the appearance of bending to social pressure. Some believe the church was shamefully slow in overturning the ban on the ordination of black men in 1978 because it didn’t want to be seen as caving to outside pressure. It would be tragic, for what many hope is a dynamic faith, if the need to keep up appearances silenced some of its most needed voices. Their theology may be a bit fantastical, but not more so than that of other religions, including my own (Roman Catholicism). How or why such people are made the object of ridicule — and sadly, they are — is confounding. Notice of Non-Discrimination: Boston University policy prohibits discrimination against any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, military service, pregnancy or pregnancy-related condition, or because of marital, parental, or veteran status, and acts in conformity with all applicable state and federal laws. This policy extends to all rights, privileges, programs and activities, including admissions, financial assistance, educational and athletic programs, housing, employment, compensation, employee benefits, and the providing of, or access to, University services or facilities. See BU’s Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy.

It’s not a big deal though. Be proud of your faith. Why is it so important to be accepted by a group that clearly doesn’t share your beliefs. Just because you both hold Jesus Christ in such high esteem doesn’t mean you are of the same religion. Did you know that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons all pray to the same God? You don’t see Muslims and Jews trying to get together and form one religion with two very different sets of beliefs. Why must Mormons be so anxious to bust into Christianity? Be strong on your own! You’re different. Own it! The dictionary definition of a Christian is a believer and follower of Christ, and this is what a Christian is at its most core level. Tim was pointing out that Mormons have Christ as the center of their religion, and therefore, are Christians. What you point out is that Mormons don’t agree with certain interpretations of Christ’s Gospel like other Christian denominations do and argue that this disqualifies them from being Christians. Mormons are Christians because they believe in and follow the doctrine of Christ as they believe the Gospel was taught and revealed through the scriptures and modern-day Prophets. Just because they differ in their beliefs on certain doctrines of Christ’s Gospel doesn’t mean that they are not Christian’s, just that they have different opinions on doctrinal points of Christ’s Gospel. By the way, this isn’t unique to Mormons. There is a reason there are so many different denominations within the Christian Religion, there are varies opinions of key doctrinal points of Christ’s Gospel that people cannot agree upon. We Mormons believe the Holy Bible is the word of God (insofar as it is translated correctly), and we use the King James version. We also believe the The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and we use it as a companion book of scripture to the Bible. Here ar some scriptures from The Book of Mormon that will help you to know that Mormons are Christians. 2 Nephi 2 – Lehi testifies of the Savior as Redeemer.

yes

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://www.visioncenter.org/blog/is-vr-bad-for-your-eyes/

Is Virtual Reality (VR) Bad for Your Eyes?

However, there are concerns over the use of VR technology. Most concerns revolve around eye and brain health. Using a VR headset can affect the interaction between your brain and eyes, forcing the brain to process visual information differently. Most people report eye strain and discomfort after spending time in virtual environments. This is because eye muscles get fatigued as users try to focus on the immersive images on the VR headset screen. Potential Effects of VR on Eyes (According to Research) Although VR is a new technology with limited studies, existing evidence points to the following potential effects: Eye Strain and Fatigue (Asthenopia) Frequent blinking reduces as you focus on a VR screen several millimeters from the eye.1 Manufacturers of VR devices are improving aspects like resolution and lens designs to mitigate this problem. They’ve also tried to reduce bulkiness, as a device’s weight puts a lot of pressure on facial muscles and eye sockets, causing eye strain. Dry Eyes In addition to eye strain, reduced blink rate when using VR headsets prevents proper moisturization and lubrication, causing dry eyes and eye pain. The heat emitted from the headsets also contributes to dry eyes. Research shows contact lens wearers are more likely to experience dryness when using VR headsets.3Fortunately, popular models like the Oculus Quest by Meta, Inc. can be fitted with prescription lenses to eliminate the need to wear contacts. Virtual Reality Sickness and Dizziness Virtual reality sickness (cybersickness) is a type of motion sickness brought about by exposure to VR environments. Virtual reality alters your eye’s depth perception (how you see things and perceive the space around you), which can cause motion sickness. Research also shows that most VR users report nausea, drowsiness, and dizziness.4 About 40% and 70% of motion sickness cases occur after 15 minutes of the VR experience.5 However, it can last several hours. People who typically experience motion sickness on a rollercoaster, train, airplane, or boat are more susceptible to VR-induced motion sickness. Twitching Eyes According to Oculus, the largest manufacturer of VR devices, eye twitching occurs in about 1 in 4,000 people. If you experience persistent twitching after using a VR headset, discontinue use and consult your eye doctor. Blurry Vision BMC Ophthalmology indicates that using VR headsets too frequently or for extended periods may cause blurred vision.7 This is a common symptom of computer vision syndrome (digital eye strain). However, the blurriness is temporary, and you should regain visual acuity once you take a break. Where to Buy Glasses + Contacts Are VR Headsets Safe for Children? Most immersive environments focus on the gaming market, which children and young adults dominate. According to 2021 statistics, 76% of American kids (under 18) are gamers.8 Children are particularly at risk of VR dangers because their depth perception, focus, and tracking abilities are still developing. Potential dangers of VR to kids include early myopia (nearsightedness) and digital eye strain.9 VR can cause myopia (nearsightedness) in kids just like a TV or computer would if they spent long hours close to the screen. Furthermore, some VR environments may not be appropriate for children or too traumatic to process. To prevent potential psychological effects, most manufacturers prohibit use by children under 13 years. Manufacturers with no age cap still mention that the devices are “not designed to be used by children.” While virtual reality is not entirely unsafe for kids, it’s better to take caution to protect their mental health and vision development. Potential Eye Health Benefits of VR Despite the negative consequences of VR headsets, current innovations aim at improving eye function, such as: Hand-eye coordination Depth perception Reaction time Visual memory Peripheral awareness (ability to see objects that aren’t in your central line of vision) Treatment for Amblyopia (Lazy Eye) VR-based treatments are also under development for children with lazy eyes as an alternative to eye patches or atropine drops.11 Luminopia One was the first FDA-approved VR-based therapy for childhood amblyopia. It combines VR technology with modified TV shows and movies that children can enjoy while improving their vision. Treatment for Vision Loss People with low vision can regain their sight with the help of VR-powered headsets. One example is SightPlus™ by GiveVision, which the manufacturer claims can help visually impaired people to see near and distant objects. Currently, VR therapy combines other treatments, such as eye patches and special glasses, and is rarely used alone. As VR technology continues to evolve, researchers are optimistic about its potential to promote eye health. How to Protect Your Eyes When Using VR The key to preventing the harmful effects of VR is using it in moderation. Take the following steps to protect your eyes: Vincent Ayaga is a medical researcher and experienced content writer with a bachelor's degree in Medical Microbiology. His areas of special interest include disease investigation, prevention, and control strategies. Vincent's mission is to create awareness of visual problems and evidence-based solutions shaping the world of ophthalmology. He believes that ophthalmic education offered through research has a greater impact among knowledge seekers. Melody Huang is an optometrist and freelance health writer. Through her writing, Dr. Huang enjoys educating patients on how to lead healthier and happier lives. She also has an interest in Eastern medicine practices and learning about integrative medicine. When she’s not working, Dr. Huang loves reviewing new skin care products, trying interesting food recipes, or hanging with her adopted cats. The information provided on VisionCenter.org should not be used in place of actual information provided by a doctor or a specialist.

However, there are concerns over the use of VR technology. Most concerns revolve around eye and brain health. Using a VR headset can affect the interaction between your brain and eyes, forcing the brain to process visual information differently. Most people report eye strain and discomfort after spending time in virtual environments. This is because eye muscles get fatigued as users try to focus on the immersive images on the VR headset screen. Potential Effects of VR on Eyes (According to Research) Although VR is a new technology with limited studies, existing evidence points to the following potential effects: Eye Strain and Fatigue (Asthenopia) Frequent blinking reduces as you focus on a VR screen several millimeters from the eye.1 Manufacturers of VR devices are improving aspects like resolution and lens designs to mitigate this problem. They’ve also tried to reduce bulkiness, as a device’s weight puts a lot of pressure on facial muscles and eye sockets, causing eye strain. Dry Eyes In addition to eye strain, reduced blink rate when using VR headsets prevents proper moisturization and lubrication, causing dry eyes and eye pain. The heat emitted from the headsets also contributes to dry eyes. Research shows contact lens wearers are more likely to experience dryness when using VR headsets.3Fortunately, popular models like the Oculus Quest by Meta, Inc. can be fitted with prescription lenses to eliminate the need to wear contacts. Virtual Reality Sickness and Dizziness Virtual reality sickness (cybersickness) is a type of motion sickness brought about by exposure to VR environments. Virtual reality alters your eye’s depth perception (how you see things and perceive the space around you), which can cause motion sickness. Research also shows that most VR users report nausea, drowsiness, and dizziness.4 About 40% and 70% of motion sickness cases occur after 15 minutes of the VR experience.5 However, it can last several hours.

yes

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://anaheimeyemd.com/is-virtual-reality-tech-bad-for-your-eyes/

Is Virtual Reality Tech Bad For Your Eyes? - Anaheim Eye Institute

Is Virtual Reality Tech Bad For Your Eyes? Virtual reality, or VR, has been a massive game-changer in the tech world. Many people have tried the immersive experience and follow the technology closely. It has been predicted that VR technology will redefine the use of the internet and how we perceive our daily lives. However, as its continued popularity grows, it is essential to consider some of the repercussions of the experience on your eyesight health. So let us take a look at some of the effects of VR on your eyes. How Does Virtual Reality Work? There are a couple of ways to experience the virtual world. However, one of the most common devices used is VR headsets. Screens and speakers are mounted inside the headset for the virtual experience. The reality bit of it is made from an interactive and realistic three-dimensional world created by a computer. The headset tracks all your movements, enabling you to interact with your virtual environment. One of the most important uses for VR headsets is their utilization in games and training. In addition, virtual reality has also become popular in the medical field; for virtual medical training and virtual reality therapy. If you are a virtual reality enthusiast, it is always better to get advice from your optometrists to ensure a better eye and overall health. What Are The Effects Of VR On Your Eyes? VR headsets are not as safe as you might think. Continued research has shown that long-term use of virtual reality can negatively affect your eyesight. Let us explore some of these effects. Increased Eye Strain Anytime you stare at a device for a prolonged period, it will cause your eyes to strain. One of the reasons this happens is continued concentration and focus on a particular point. This also slows down your blinking, which contributes to dry eyes. Though eye-straining is only temporary, the discomfort can be problematic. Blurred Or Cloudy Vision You might experience cloudy or blurred vision after using your headset too often. This results from prolonged exposure to rapid changing of light and eye muscle adjustment. However, the distorted vision should only last for a moment. Complications With Existing Eye Conditions Your existing eye condition can worsen with the continued use of VR devices. The immersive experience of the VR devices includes alterations to depth perception, which can pose challenges when focusing. Over time, you might notice that your symptoms are becoming more profound. Headaches And Fatigue Increased eye strain is one of the causes of fatigue. As your eye muscles continually try to adjust to the virtual environment, they get overworked. You may also experience headaches after prolonged use of your virtual headset. Visually Induced Motion Sickness Have you heard of cyber-sickness? It is a common condition that results from VR experiences. Vertigo or motion sickness occurs when your brain gets disoriented by movement. However, when using a VR set, your brain is tricked into thinking that you are in motion leading to sensory disorientation. Your inner ear is responsible for detecting your body balance and movement. The visual and auditory stimulations from the headset can induce motion sickness. Dizziness As we previously stated, your inner ear is responsible for maintaining body balance and perceiving body movement. Auditory stimulations might lead to sensory disorientation from the perceived virtual reality experience. With the confused perception of reality, your brain tries to adapt to the rapid stimulations, throwing it off guard. This can make you lose balance and feel dizzy. Eye Twitching When using a VR headset, prolonged exposure to light can cause rapid muscle twitching in your eye. The simulation can have quick light flashes, which require your eyes to adjust and focus quickly. Over time, these quick adjustments can affect your eye muscles, leaving them twitching and strained. Are Headsets Safe For Kids? VR headsets are not safe for kids. With the continued growth of VR environments for gaming purposes, kids are at the highest risk of suffering from eye-related conditions. During childhood, depth perception, focus, and tracking are still developing. Continued VR use can alter vision development, causing early development of myopia, eye straining, and discomfort. How To Avoid The Harmful Effects Of VR One of the solutions to minimize your risk of harmful VR effects is to reduce the amount of time spent during your virtual experience. Try adopting the 20-20-20 rule. After every 20 minutes in your virtual environment, take off the headset and focus on a spot 20 feet away for about 20 seconds. This gives your eyes time to adapt, refocus, and relax to prevent eye strain. Remember to keep blinking to prevent further eye strain or cloudy or blurred vision. This also applies to any other screens that you use. You can also customize your headset to suit particular needs. These adjustments include focal distance and strap alterations to make the experience more comfortable. In addition, if you cannot keep your kid away from the VR set, then try to minimize their screen time to about five minutes. This reduces the risk of developing early eye conditions. Are There Any Benefits To Using VR Headsets? Using your VR is not all that bad. On the contrary, your eyes can substantially benefit from using the headsets. One of the most common uses for VR machines is conducting eye examinations. Your optometrist can use the device to help them understand focus issues and muscle imbalances. Furthermore, research shows that VR sets are efficient tools in treating lazy eye (amblyopia), vergence dysfunction, and lack of stereo depth perception. In A Nutshell Though VR has gained a lot of popularity, special attention needs to be taken to deal with your eye and overall health. Reducing the time you spend on your headset is a perfect way to reduce its harmful effects.

Is Virtual Reality Tech Bad For Your Eyes? Virtual reality, or VR, has been a massive game-changer in the tech world. Many people have tried the immersive experience and follow the technology closely. It has been predicted that VR technology will redefine the use of the internet and how we perceive our daily lives. However, as its continued popularity grows, it is essential to consider some of the repercussions of the experience on your eyesight health. So let us take a look at some of the effects of VR on your eyes. How Does Virtual Reality Work? There are a couple of ways to experience the virtual world. However, one of the most common devices used is VR headsets. Screens and speakers are mounted inside the headset for the virtual experience. The reality bit of it is made from an interactive and realistic three-dimensional world created by a computer. The headset tracks all your movements, enabling you to interact with your virtual environment. One of the most important uses for VR headsets is their utilization in games and training. In addition, virtual reality has also become popular in the medical field; for virtual medical training and virtual reality therapy. If you are a virtual reality enthusiast, it is always better to get advice from your optometrists to ensure a better eye and overall health. What Are The Effects Of VR On Your Eyes? VR headsets are not as safe as you might think. Continued research has shown that long-term use of virtual reality can negatively affect your eyesight. Let us explore some of these effects. Increased Eye Strain Anytime you stare at a device for a prolonged period, it will cause your eyes to strain. One of the reasons this happens is continued concentration and focus on a particular point. This also slows down your blinking, which contributes to dry eyes. Though eye-straining is only temporary, the discomfort can be problematic. Blurred Or Cloudy Vision You might experience cloudy or blurred vision after using your headset too often. This results from prolonged exposure to rapid changing of light and eye muscle adjustment. However, the distorted vision should only last for a moment.

yes

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://lifetimeeyecare.ca/virtual-reality-games-may-harmful-young-kids-eyes/

Virtual Reality Games May be Harmful to Young Kids' Eyes - Lifetime ...

Virtual Reality Games May be Harmful to Young Kids’ Eyes Virtual Reality Can Cause Real Damage to Children’s eyes. Kids usually are great with new technology, from tablets to the new trend in video games called Virtual Reality games (VR). Optometrists are warning parents about the new products hitting the shelves lately. VR headsets, usually too big for kids’ heads, are meant for adult eyes and may cause damage to the eyes of kids under the age of 13. Vancouver optometrist Dr. Justin Asgarpour commented “These devices are designed mostly for adult use. What a study has suggested is that a VR device can actually trigger what we call amblyopia, a potential lazy eye, in these children with pre-existing visual conditions.” It is also possible that children without any vision problem can experience them, like temporary double-vision, after using the headsets. Doctors have warned that the devices can also lead to disorientation and balance issues. Parents are not advised to let their children play with the devices, or to at least limit their time spent playing virtual reality games. There is a Health and Safety Guide on the Oculus Rift website stating “This product should not be used by children under the age of 13, as the headset is not sized for children and improper sizing can lead to discomfort or health effects, and younger children are in a critical period in visual development.” Voted #1 Best Optometrists, Eyeglasses and Optical in New Westminster year after year. Designer Eyeglasses, Eyeglass Lenses, On-Site Optical, Free Eye Exams for Children and Seniors, Dry Eye Treatment, Eye Specialist and much more.

Virtual Reality Games May be Harmful to Young Kids’ Eyes Virtual Reality Can Cause Real Damage to Children’s eyes. Kids usually are great with new technology, from tablets to the new trend in video games called Virtual Reality games (VR). Optometrists are warning parents about the new products hitting the shelves lately. VR headsets, usually too big for kids’ heads, are meant for adult eyes and may cause damage to the eyes of kids under the age of 13. Vancouver optometrist Dr. Justin Asgarpour commented “These devices are designed mostly for adult use. What a study has suggested is that a VR device can actually trigger what we call amblyopia, a potential lazy eye, in these children with pre-existing visual conditions.” It is also possible that children without any vision problem can experience them, like temporary double-vision, after using the headsets. Doctors have warned that the devices can also lead to disorientation and balance issues. Parents are not advised to let their children play with the devices, or to at least limit their time spent playing virtual reality games. There is a Health and Safety Guide on the Oculus Rift website stating “This product should not be used by children under the age of 13, as the headset is not sized for children and improper sizing can lead to discomfort or health effects, and younger children are in a critical period in visual development.” Voted #1 Best Optometrists, Eyeglasses and Optical in New Westminster year after year. Designer Eyeglasses, Eyeglass Lenses, On-Site Optical, Free Eye Exams for Children and Seniors, Dry Eye Treatment, Eye Specialist and much more.

yes

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://vrtouch.eu/en/news/139-analysis-of-the-harmful-effects-of-vr-headsets.html

Analysis of the harmful effects of VR-headsets

Analysis of the harmful effects of VR-headsets Virtual reality devices (helmets, glasses) are rapidly entering our everyday lives. Digital virtual reality (VR) technology is now used for gaming and education, medical treatment, and complex transplant surgeries. Analysts believe that by 2023, the global market for VR / AR training alone will grow to $6.3 billion. However, the impact of VR technology on human health and the psyche remains poorly understood. After relatively long use of VR helmets, many people experience headaches, nausea, disorientation, and dizziness - seizures and epileptic seizures in sporadic cases. They even coined a particular term for the complex of symptoms: cyber-disease. What happens to our body and mind? Is there a risk of getting lost in colorful fantasies, and is an extended stay in a VR helmet harmful to human health? Let's start with the harm to eyesight. For example, modern VR headsets pose a threat to the eyes, and ophthalmologists warn of dry eye syndrome, which used to be associated only with prolonged work on the computer. According to studies, children under the age of 5-10 can develop myopia, astigmatism, and general visual impairment. However, scientists believe that if you stick to basic rules: after every hour of exposure to the screen, give your eyes a 15-minute rest, doing special exercises for the eyes, the risk of disease will be minimal. Thus, the harm to the eyesight is not more significant than when working at a computer or using a smartphone by the manufacturer's recommended time of use. At the same time, Chinese scientists suggest treating some eye diseases with VR glasses in the future. Many VR-headset users experience seasickness: people feel nauseous, dizzy, have a feeling of discomfort, and so on. There are two reasons for this: the constitution of each person and the imperfection of today's VR headsets. Since the problem is caused by dissonance between the various senses (e.g., vision and vestibular apparatus), the challenge for developers is to synchronize all of these human systems. Prolonged use of a virtual reality helmet can knock a person out of balance for a long time. The game cannot simulate reality completely, so people have problems with coordination and orientation in space after coming out of it, such as spilling liquids past the mouth. The good thing is that these effects are short-lived and only occur when the player is in the helmet for an extended period. And this is now really a problem with using VR, and it remains to wait for headsets that will synchronize all the senses and create a virtual world identical to the real one. VR helmets can be dangerous for people with mental problems because any stressful virtual reality situation can provoke many side effects. On the other hand, the concussion helps the body to adapt to develop protective mechanisms. That is why Vr helmets can be helpful in the treatment of a variety of mental disorders, for example, aerophobia. Helmets can help treat anxiety disorders, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and the diagnosis and training of cognitive functions (memory, attention, spatial thinking). With frequent immersion into the virtual world, a person can get too involved in the role of his hero, which affects his behavior in real life. A person can also begin to lose the sense of time and become antisocial. However, this is a problem for all avid gamers, not just virtual reality users. At the same time, psychologists argue that virtual reality can become salvation for people with disabilities and communication limitations. There is an opportunity to communicate with other players; people can plunge into this virtual world and forget about their rules and problems. To summarize, VR headsets should be used with caution in pregnant women, the elderly, with cardiovascular disease, epilepsy, visual impairment, and children under 13 years of age. Moreover, we will have to develop unified sanitary standards for virtual reality, compliance with which will help maintain the health of users.

Analysis of the harmful effects of VR-headsets Virtual reality devices (helmets, glasses) are rapidly entering our everyday lives. Digital virtual reality (VR) technology is now used for gaming and education, medical treatment, and complex transplant surgeries. Analysts believe that by 2023, the global market for VR / AR training alone will grow to $6.3 billion. However, the impact of VR technology on human health and the psyche remains poorly understood. After relatively long use of VR helmets, many people experience headaches, nausea, disorientation, and dizziness - seizures and epileptic seizures in sporadic cases. They even coined a particular term for the complex of symptoms: cyber-disease. What happens to our body and mind? Is there a risk of getting lost in colorful fantasies, and is an extended stay in a VR helmet harmful to human health? Let's start with the harm to eyesight. For example, modern VR headsets pose a threat to the eyes, and ophthalmologists warn of dry eye syndrome, which used to be associated only with prolonged work on the computer. According to studies, children under the age of 5-10 can develop myopia, astigmatism, and general visual impairment. However, scientists believe that if you stick to basic rules: after every hour of exposure to the screen, give your eyes a 15-minute rest, doing special exercises for the eyes, the risk of disease will be minimal. Thus, the harm to the eyesight is not more significant than when working at a computer or using a smartphone by the manufacturer's recommended time of use. At the same time, Chinese scientists suggest treating some eye diseases with VR glasses in the future. Many VR-headset users experience seasickness: people feel nauseous, dizzy, have a feeling of discomfort, and so on. There are two reasons for this: the constitution of each person and the imperfection of today's VR headsets.

yes

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://vrinformers.com/is-virtual-reality-safe/

Is Virtual Reality Safe? – Cyber Space Virtual Reality

Is Virtual Reality Safe? As virtual reality gets more and more popular, everybody is wondering if it is safe for use. I use VR almost every day, so I did some research on the topic to find out if there are any issues it is causing to our health. Virtual reality is very safe for the average adult, although excessive use can lead to eye strain and fatigue. Some studies suggest that intense use by children may lead to difficulty interacting with others. There is a lot that we can talk about in regard to virtual reality and its overall safety. Read on to learn more about the impact of VR on health and how it relates to you, your family, and friends. Is Virtual Reality Safe for Your Eyes? The average person’s eyesight has been declining over the last several decades, and many scientists and doctors point at the fact that much of the work we do is really close to our eyes, making us develop a disease called myopia, or near-sightedness. Does VR also add to this mix? This nearsightedness can be caused by a lot of different things, but a really big cause is working on things close to you. Smartphones, computers, and laptops are all things that require our eyes to focus on something really close, which might be the reason why many more people are developing nearsightedness then before. So what does this mean for virtual reality? Virtual reality is not like other forms of media, and even though the screen is really close to your eyes, it does not have the same effects that holding a phone at that distance has. At this point, there is no data or studies showing that Virtual Reality is harmful to one’s eyesight. Virtual reality simulates distance using lenses so that your eyes need to adjust for distance normally. Myopia is developed from repeatedly using your eyes to view objects really close, but with a simulated distance that comes in a virtual reality environment, your eyes are viewing things that are “far away”. Virtual reality uses binocular vision to make your eyes look at things far away. That effect is what makes virtual reality awesome and mind-blowing, and it is safe for the wearer. Is VR bad Unsafe for Kids? Many people worry that virtual reality exposure to young people can have harmful consequences in regards to their health in the future. I understand this concern and have thought about this many times as well. Here is a chart of all the headsets and their age recommendations. This, however, does not mean that someone younger than the recommendation will be harmed by wearing the headset. Headset Age Recommendation Oculus Headsets 13+ Samsung GearVR 13+ HTC “Not intended for young children” Valve index No recommendation Playstation VR 12+ It is pretty obvious to me that most of these companies don’t want young kids to be using these headsets, and I think that is very indicative. Although virtual reality is really great for a vast number of reasons, it is probably best to hold off on letting children use it until they reach pre-teen years. Children Have a Harder Time Distinguishing Differences Between Reality and VR Studies have found that children cannot distinguish virtual reality from real-life memories until at least the age of ten. This could be really dangerous for kids if they were to use virtual reality unmonitored. Many parents allow their children to use virtual reality briefly because of this. The fact that there really are not any substantial long term studies on this topic makes a lot of people really cautious. Children are much more prone to get absorbed in a virtual world because their imaginations run wild, but also because they have not experienced enough of reality to see the gaping flaws in virtual reality. For example, if a child plays role-playing games for a really long time, they might not understand that the facial expressions found in the game are cheap knockoffs of real body language, and not have the same innate abilities that other children would. This is all speculation because like I said, there are no real long term studies on the effects that VR has on children or even adults. Be careful, but right now there are not any big signs to make us assume that virtual reality is really damaging to children. It is left up to the parent how much virtual reality a child encounters, but I would suggest putting some limiters on them until they are at the very least 11-13 years old. They can definitely try it out and play before that, but I would not recommend giving them free rein this young. Is VR Safe for One’s Social Skills? Vr is relatively new, and studies on this topic are relatively few in number. We can definitely speculate and have assumptions on this topic though. There is a reason that almost every single headset out there has some sort of age recommendation. Childhood development is complicated, but adding in virtual reality might not be a good idea. There is a lot to be said about the dangers that VR may present to children, but the real question is if they are any different from video games or movies. In my opinion virtual reality, like any other hobby, can affect one’s social interaction if not done in moderation. If someone gets to in to any activity it can prevent them from socializing with others. VR is no exception to this, and if you seem to be putting virtual reality over spending time with people there might be an issue. Is VR Safer Than Other Video Games? Virtual reality and standard console or computer games have a lot in common. Video games are a way to interact with virtual people and spaces. Virtual reality heightens that interaction by making it 3 dimensional. There are a lot of different studies on video games, but none of them have turned up any sort of conclusive evidence that they cause violence or any sort of personality disorders. Again, virtual reality, like video games, can start to become less safe if one spends too much time doing that than other important things. VR – A more physical video game The biggest flaw with video games is that they are fairly addictive, and they do not provide any sort of physical exercise other than an elevated heart rate and quick thumbs. Virtual reality is very different. Virtual reality requires a lot more than just moving your hands on a keyboard or controller. In order to be really good at virtual reality, the player needs to be healthy and fast. They need to be able to move around and have good hand-eye coordination. Much like sports, virtual reality games need both physical strength and speed as well as mental. Many virtual reality games are physically exhausting. There are plenty of people out there that use virtual reality to workout and even lose weight. My brother lost 40 pounds playing a game called beat saber. Virtual reality can be thrown in the video game lot in terms of its effects on the brain, but virtual reality can be really beneficial to physical health. The Immediate Dangers of VR You are not going to instantly get hurt by putting on a virtual reality headset, everyone is safe in that regard. However, there are some risks associated with playing virtual reality. Blinded to the Real World When somebody uses virtual reality, they generally have no ability to see what is going on around them. This has a lot of potential for disaster in terms of safety for the wearer and those in the room. For example, we had a virtual reality set going in a family friends home a few months back when we made a mistake. After we had designated an area for the person playing virtual reality to do their thing, somebody had sat down inside the danger zone. In the game that we had running, you have to punch bad guys, but the player ended up punching his own mother. There are a lot of different virtual reality games out there, and not all of them run the risk of you punching the wall or another person. Many games are really tame, and if you set up your play area correctly then you should be okay. Even though it is rare, it should be mentioned that this can happen. People can get really hurt and people need to be careful. It is not hard to keep people safe though, you just have to set up some rules so that people understand when and where to be when someone is in virtual mode. Forgetting You Are in a Virtual World I have put a lot of people into virtual reality for the first time, and each one of them reacts differently. Some people do really well at distinguishing the real from the virtual. For example, you may not realize that things in virtual reality are not actually there. When somebody enters virtual reality, they are shown things that look really real. This is potentially unsafe for those who forget where they are. Sometimes people try to lean on walls, tables, banisters, or even try to take a step on stairs that are not there. This can result in a really bad fall, and falling is never a good idea when you cannot see what is going on around you due to a head-mounted display. Another example of this is thinking you are falling. For example, there is a game called Richie’s Plank Experience where the player walks out on a plank that is 30 stories up in a virtual building, and then walks off and is given the feeling of falling. We have had people physically jump in the real world as if they are taking a nose dive off of a cliff! Although falling virtually will not hurt you, hitting your face on the ground will. To keep people safe in virtual reality, we find it nice to have a spotter there just in case someone forgets where they are or falls. We have saved people from some injuries by doing this. Saftey Reasons to Avoid Virtual Reality Epilepsy People with epilepsy should know that it is a really bad idea to play virtual reality. Most games even have big warnings in place so that people don’t mistakenly play when they have this condition. VR is not for everyone, especially those susceptible to seizures. It can be really intense in terms of lights and even frightening. There isn’t much more to say, as people with epilepsy understand the risks associated with playing in a virtual reality headset with a lot of flashing lights. Heart Conditions Virtual reality can be really intense and putting somebody inside a crazy new world when they run the risk of a heart attack anyway is a really bad idea. Lots of games and experiences also warn people with conditions like these to play with caution. Older folks are going to have a lot of trouble staying calm in some virtual reality games. I have put many people from the older generation into virtual reality, and they are usually fine as long as they are sitting down and not playing anything that is too intense. I really recommend games like google earth VR. Balance Issues There are some people that already have trouble standing up, and they really should be careful when they are playing virtual reality. Again, if there is someone who wants to play VR that doesn’t have great balance, it is a good idea to have a spotter for their safety. It is really easy to fall over when you have no feedback in your eyes as to your physical relation to the ground. A great test to see if somebody is virtual reality ready is to put a blindfold on them and see if they can stay standing. If they are solid without wobbling they might be able to handle virtual reality. Safety Tips for Virtual Reality Virtual reality is really great, and I have spent countless hours playing myself as well as helping other people play. I have learned some really important tips when playing virtual reality that will help you and those around you be safe when playing virtual reality. Here is a list of 8 safety tips when playing VR. Continue reading to get more details on each one of them. Designate a Play Space Show the Player the Grid Remove Reckless Players Use Caution With Headphones Brief First-Time Wearers Physical Contact is Your Friend Remember They Can’t See You Watch the Wires Tip #1: Designate a Play Space This is really important, even though it may seem fairly obvious. This will keep people from wandering too close and getting hurt by the VR wearer. When you set up most headsets, you set boundaries that the person in virtual reality is not supposed to leave. Those boundaries are shown with a simple grid whenever the person playing gets too close. Have set rules in place so that people know where the play space is and when it is okay to enter so that everyone is safe from harm. Tip #2: Show the Player the Grid It is really important that whoever is playing virtual reality understands where and what the playspace grid is. The playspace grid is a series of lines that appear in the player’s vision while in virtual reality when they get too close to the edge of the playspace. If the player does not know what they are or what they mean, they cannot know the proper course of action. The easiest way to do this is to put the headset on somebody that is going to be playing in virtual reality and then walk them to the edge of the playspace, and ask them to tell you when they see the lines. Explain what the lines are used for and what to do when they see them. It is important to show the player each and every border of the play space, especially the one behind them. Tell them that the lines are there to remind them that they are not actually inside the virtual world, but instead are in a place with objects and people that are not visible to them. Tip #3: Remove Reckless Players Nobody likes somebody that ruins the fun, but you need to stop somebody if they are becoming reckless. This is especially important with younger kids. If they are swinging madly without regard for the play area or what is going on around them then they need to be taught a lesson by removing the headset. Some headsets and program have a way of pausing with the keyboard or mouse, and that is a great way for them to stop what they are doing. VR needs to be safe for everybody involved, including those not playing the game at the time, and a reckless player can seriously harm those in the room. Pay attention to what is happening around the player, especially if the player is not you. Tip #4: Use Caution With Headphones Unless you know that you are going to be left alone, be really careful when using headphones. A great advantage of playing VR in a group is that there can be audible warnings when somebody is about to hurt themselves, others, or even the wall. If somebody has headphones in, then it can be really difficult to warn them that there is danger ahead. With noise-canceling headphones, even yelling STOP is not very effective. Tip #5: Brief First Time Wearers So They Know What’s Going On Virtual reality is really amazing and can bring some really great emotion into peoples minds. I have seen people go visit their homeland in another country that they have not had the money to go visit in years, which brings tears to their eyes. What you do not want to do is use this power to make people panic without them knowing what is about to happen. Some really great games out there can be a lot of fun, but the player should really know what is going on. This video is a great example of some of the fear that VR can spark, and although the person playing this had a ton of fun, it shows that he was truly scared; See what I mean? He was really shaking. There are a lot of games out there that are much scarier than just walking off a ledge as this guy did, and whoever is playing VR should know exactly what they are in for. Tip #6: Physical Contact is Your Friend Many people lose track of reality and no longer have the ability to maintain balance, or even get too freaked out to play the game. In order to provide a truly safe VR experience, sometimes it is a good idea to rest your hand on the shoulder of whoever is playing so that they feel stable and anchored in reality. We found it really important that in some games you have a spotter there to catch the player in the event that they fall. This is pretty rare, but it is better to be safe than sorry. Tip #7: Remember That They Cannot See You It is really important that the person in virtual reality knows what is or is not inside their play space. It is a good idea to speak clearly what you are doing if you are going to be in the playspace. For example, if you are sitting down next to the play area waiting your turn and need to get up for something, state loudly that you are getting up and get some form of acknowledgment from the player that they are ready for you to do so. If you fail to do this, then somebody is bound to get punched. I have seen it happen and everybody involved was not happy. Tip #8: Watch the Wires If you are going to a fancy virtual reality arcade, then you probably don’t have to worry about this much at all; if you are at home then you better watch out for those pesky cords. If you take a look at the video in tip #5, you will see me holding the wire up so that it doesn’t get in the way of the player. The key here is watching to make sure that they don’t get all tangled up and trip over something that they cannot see. Be mindful of where this cord is at, and if you ever feel like it is getting too tangled up around the player, just ask them to simply pause for a moment and remove the headset to fix the problem. The worst thing that could happen is that you twist up the wire so much that it breaks in some way or gets short enough to tug it out of the sockets somehow damaging the computer. If you have a standalone headset then you only need to worry about this when you are using the headset while it is charging. If you are charging the headset that is normally untethered, it can be easy to forget that it is actually connected to something. This is a really easy way to break your headset. Hey, I'm Sean, and I am a co-founder of Cyber Space Virtual Reality. I have a strong passion for everything VR and I hope to tell the world how awesome it is and help everybody experience it in new ways! About Us Hi! Our names are Sean and Landon, and this is where we talk about what's what in the world of virtual reality. We also consult people on how to embrace the new technology in their businesses and home life. LEGAL INFORMATION This site is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We are compensated for referring traffic and business to Amazon and other companies linked to on this site.

Smartphones, computers, and laptops are all things that require our eyes to focus on something really close, which might be the reason why many more people are developing nearsightedness then before. So what does this mean for virtual reality? Virtual reality is not like other forms of media, and even though the screen is really close to your eyes, it does not have the same effects that holding a phone at that distance has. At this point, there is no data or studies showing that Virtual Reality is harmful to one’s eyesight. Virtual reality simulates distance using lenses so that your eyes need to adjust for distance normally. Myopia is developed from repeatedly using your eyes to view objects really close, but with a simulated distance that comes in a virtual reality environment, your eyes are viewing things that are “far away”. Virtual reality uses binocular vision to make your eyes look at things far away. That effect is what makes virtual reality awesome and mind-blowing, and it is safe for the wearer. Is VR bad Unsafe for Kids? Many people worry that virtual reality exposure to young people can have harmful consequences in regards to their health in the future. I understand this concern and have thought about this many times as well. Here is a chart of all the headsets and their age recommendations. This, however, does not mean that someone younger than the recommendation will be harmed by wearing the headset. Headset Age Recommendation Oculus Headsets 13+ Samsung GearVR 13+ HTC “Not intended for young children” Valve index No recommendation Playstation VR 12+ It is pretty obvious to me that most of these companies don’t want young kids to be using these headsets, and I think that is very indicative. Although virtual reality is really great for a vast number of reasons, it is probably best to hold off on letting children use it until they reach pre-teen years. Children Have a Harder Time Distinguishing Differences Between Reality and VR Studies have found that children cannot distinguish virtual reality from real-life memories until at least the age of ten.

no

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://fotonvr.com/is-virtual-reality-headset-harmful-to-the-eyes/

Is Virtual Reality headset harmful to the eyes ? - fotonVR

Such questions are genuine in today’s time. Schools and parents are using Tablets, Smartphones, Smart-screens, Projector, and every other gadget to teach to their children for a better understanding of the topic. The question becomes even more relevant because the topic is related to their children’s health. I’ll say that it is a very delicate matter and our team is always working for better educational technology and content. I’ll talk in detail about every aspect that will help you give an adequate answer.Screen’s brightness is one of the most important concerns, that can cause harm to their eyes. The fact is, It’s a complete myth. Sudden change in screen brightness is a concerning fact. Each and every individual eye reacts differently to different kinds of light. If you are strolling on the street at night then due to low light your pupil (which is a part inside your eyes) expands. Whereas on a brighter day the pupil will shrink so less amount or the required amount of light can pass. The screen brightness affects your eyes when you are continuously watching the screen in dark. In this case, your eyes will unable to adjust as frequently to bright light. In education, when a child wears the Virtual Reality Headset s/he is experiencing a 360-degree view of the concept. The content is curated in such a way that if he/she is looking at a particular visual, the brightness of that particular visual is consistent throughout the session. Another frequently asked question is, Would my Child be prone to myopia or short-sightedness if he uses Virtual Reality Headset? When your child stares at an object which is very close to him for a prolonged period of time, there are chances that it might cause him myopia. In yoga, a very powerful meditation called “Tratak Vidhya” is used to increase the eye & brain’s capabilities. But there is a catch, in this meditation, a person has to do it only for a few minutes a day. It involves starring at a single point without blinking your eye. During the meditation, his eyes start ejecting teardrops. Now it’s likely to assume that we can perform this Vidya with gadgets as well. This will be harmful as various lights are emitted through these gadgets causing strain on your eyes. But in VR headsets, the objects are in different positions by the learner. The objects are also continuously moving so as they are visible at a distance. The concepts in Virtual reality are designed in a different way. You feel you are physically present performing laboratory experiments, robotics, exploring the universe in space. The objects can be moved 360 degrees so that you can focus on a particular object at a time by blurring the background. All of these functionalities are built so that you feel the minimum strain on your eyes. Another important concern is, The simple answer to it would be if you spend more time with a blue screen on any gadget then it becomes an issue. The visible spectrum has a wavelength range of around 400 to 700 nanometer. 450-550 nm wavelength is considered to be good for the eyes. In this spectrum, green color plays a major part. To make it simple, in our educational content we have used the green color most, as this color is scientifically considered to soothe our eyes. This will help the learners to enjoy the science activity in the VR headset. In a world full of innovative ideas, every new innovative technology comes with pros and cons. If you are using any 21st-century gadgets, you have to realize that excess of anything is bad. So one has to use technology in a responsible manner. Even if you wear the VR headset for a longer period than might create health issues. But, we have taken enough care of it as well. FotonVR’s educational content is designed in such a manner that every activity is of a maximum of 9 minutes. This allows learners to take a break and discuss the science concept with the teacher or parents. We recommend a learner to take a break in every 10-15 minutes. If the learner considers this as a key aspect, s/he might never have to suffer from any cybersickness. Why fotonVR ? To get the best experience of VR Headset and fotonVR’s science education content user has to use the VR Headset in a proper manner. Lastly, I want to say to all my readers that the proper mounting of the VR headset is really important. It has so much to do with getting a proper point of view and an immersive feeling. If the student does not get a proper point of view at the first view, immediately readjust the VR Headset and wear it properly. Thus, you’re learning becomes fun and playful.

In education, when a child wears the Virtual Reality Headset s/he is experiencing a 360-degree view of the concept. The content is curated in such a way that if he/she is looking at a particular visual, the brightness of that particular visual is consistent throughout the session. Another frequently asked question is, Would my Child be prone to myopia or short-sightedness if he uses Virtual Reality Headset? When your child stares at an object which is very close to him for a prolonged period of time, there are chances that it might cause him myopia. In yoga, a very powerful meditation called “Tratak Vidhya” is used to increase the eye & brain’s capabilities. But there is a catch, in this meditation, a person has to do it only for a few minutes a day. It involves starring at a single point without blinking your eye. During the meditation, his eyes start ejecting teardrops. Now it’s likely to assume that we can perform this Vidya with gadgets as well. This will be harmful as various lights are emitted through these gadgets causing strain on your eyes. But in VR headsets, the objects are in different positions by the learner. The objects are also continuously moving so as they are visible at a distance. The concepts in Virtual reality are designed in a different way. You feel you are physically present performing laboratory experiments, robotics, exploring the universe in space. The objects can be moved 360 degrees so that you can focus on a particular object at a time by blurring the background. All of these functionalities are built so that you feel the minimum strain on your eyes. Another important concern is, The simple answer to it would be if you spend more time with a blue screen on any gadget then it becomes an issue. The visible spectrum has a wavelength range of around 400 to 700 nanometer. 450-550 nm wavelength is considered to be good for the eyes. In this spectrum, green color plays a major part.

no

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://vocal.media/01/how-can-vr-cause-cancer-xrz6qz0dul

How can vr cause cancer? | 01

How can vr cause cancer? How does virtual reality contribute to cancer? If you love technology and the way it can be utilized in our everyday lives, then virtual reality should be a welcome development for you. However, like all great inventions, there are some potential drawbacks that may be cause for concern to those who are more closely acquainted with VR. The virtual reality headset display is so close to the user's eyes that it can cause damage to their eyesight. Virtual reality is the hottest new trend in technology, but it can be hazardous to your health. The virtual reality headset display is so close to the user's eyes that it can cause damage to their eyesight. The lenses make the virtual world appear very large and close, which causes eye fatigue and headaches. The discomfort can also lead to blurred vision, double vision or eye strain. Vr headsets are often compatible with headphones, which could be a potential cause of hearing loss. Virtual reality (VR) headsets can be used for a variety of purposes, ranging from gaming to education and even healthcare. However, recent studies have shown that VR headsets may pose a serious health risk to users. The biggest concern is the potential for eye strain and headaches caused by wearing the headsets for extended periods of time. This issue has been documented in several studies, including one published by Dr. Brian Koch in the journal JAMA Ophthalmology. The study found that wearing a VR headset for more than an hour at a time could cause eye strain and headaches in some users. Another possible risk is hearing loss caused by wearing headphones while using the headset. Headphones are often compatible with VR headsets, which could be a potential cause of hearing loss if they are not properly sealed around the ear canal or worn at safe levels. Vr can increase the risk of stroke by increasing blood pressure and raising heart rate. Virtual reality, or VR, can be a fun way to pass the time and escape the real world. But it's not just a game — there are some serious risks involved with using VR headsets. The most common risk is eye strain. When you use a VR headset, you have to focus on two different screens at once — one for each eye. That means that your eyes have to work harder than normal. Over time, this can cause blurred vision or headaches. Another potential problem is dizziness. If you're playing a game that requires you to move around in virtual space, then it's possible that you might feel dizzy when you take off your headset and look back at your real-world surroundings. The brain gets confused by the differences between what it sees in front of it and what it sees through the headset's lenses. Virtual reality can also cause motion sickness if you're moving around while wearing the device or if there are sudden changes in direction or speed during gameplay. With some medical conditions, like epilepsy or vertigo, using a vr headset can trigger seizures or other symptoms. Can vr cause cancer? A 2016 study in the Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting found that VR headsets contain up to 10 times more radio frequency energy than mobile phones. It's unclear whether this energy is harmful to humans, but the study concluded that further research is needed. Some medical conditions, like epilepsy or vertigo, can make it unsafe for you to use a VR headset. If you have these conditions, check with your doctor before using a VR headset. What about long-term effects on vision? There haven't been any studies on the long-term effects of VR on eyesight yet. But some users have reported eye strain from playing games for extended periods. This condition is similar to what happens when you're reading or working on a computer too long — eyestrain results from having your eyes focused on one thing for too long without taking breaks. To avoid eye strain: Take frequent breaks from playing games (at least once every 20 minutes). Look away from the screen every few minutes by moving your head around and blinking frequently. Look away from the screen by doing something else that doesn't require focusing your eyes on one thing (reading a book or magazine). In Brief... VR headsets do not cause cancer, and any reports to the contrary are overblown. While it's true that certain medical conditions can be triggered by VR use, many of these conditions already have an increased risk at the baseline because of other factors. Because VR hasn't been around for long, more studies will likely show up in years to come and offer more insight into its effects. That said, giving up vr altogether isn't a solution. While some people should not use them (especially if they have pre-existing conditions), others can use vr in moderation with no issue at all. So just follow these guidelines and you should be fine.

How can vr cause cancer? How does virtual reality contribute to cancer? If you love technology and the way it can be utilized in our everyday lives, then virtual reality should be a welcome development for you. However, like all great inventions, there are some potential drawbacks that may be cause for concern to those who are more closely acquainted with VR. The virtual reality headset display is so close to the user's eyes that it can cause damage to their eyesight. Virtual reality is the hottest new trend in technology, but it can be hazardous to your health. The virtual reality headset display is so close to the user's eyes that it can cause damage to their eyesight. The lenses make the virtual world appear very large and close, which causes eye fatigue and headaches. The discomfort can also lead to blurred vision, double vision or eye strain. Vr headsets are often compatible with headphones, which could be a potential cause of hearing loss. Virtual reality (VR) headsets can be used for a variety of purposes, ranging from gaming to education and even healthcare. However, recent studies have shown that VR headsets may pose a serious health risk to users. The biggest concern is the potential for eye strain and headaches caused by wearing the headsets for extended periods of time. This issue has been documented in several studies, including one published by Dr. Brian Koch in the journal JAMA Ophthalmology. The study found that wearing a VR headset for more than an hour at a time could cause eye strain and headaches in some users. Another possible risk is hearing loss caused by wearing headphones while using the headset. Headphones are often compatible with VR headsets, which could be a potential cause of hearing loss if they are not properly sealed around the ear canal or worn at safe levels. Vr can increase the risk of stroke by increasing blood pressure and raising heart rate. Virtual reality, or VR, can be a fun way to pass the time and escape the real world. But it's not just a game — there are some serious risks involved with using VR headsets. The most common risk is eye strain.

yes

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://medium.com/@altairika/are-the-vr-headsets-harmful-to-the-childrens-health-724ab2d12c39

Are the VR headsets harmful to the children's health? | by Altairika ...

Are the VR headsets harmful to the children’s health? Virtual reality can move us to the battlefield, underwater world, outer space or any place overnight. Considering the fact that VR manufacturers keep designing new devices, apps, and games that offer kids and teenagers to experience the effect of full immersion, the parents are getting anxious. Do the VR headsets harm the health of their children? We decided to dispel myths and provide answers to the most frequent questions. VR manufacturers keep designing new devices, apps, and games that offer kids and teenagers to experience the effect of full immersion. “Why do manufacturers set the age limits”? The most of VR headsets producers highlight the age limit. It is recommended to use VR devices only if you are older than 12. At the same time, the ophthalmologists admit that there are no researches proving the negative impact of VR technology on the functions of the eye. “The age limit should exist only for content. The technology itself does not harm the children’s health”, says the ophthalmologists Stephen Lipskiy. “I feel dizziness while using VR headset, is it ok”? Staring at the moving picture in virtual reality sends the same signal to the brain as you observe the physical objects in real life. This is the only one reason why you can feel dizziness or nausea. If you suffer from motion sickness on a roller coaster, in the car or on the boat so that you definitely feel the same while using a VR headset. It’s not about VR, it’s about your vestibular system. “Eyes get quite tired when wearing VR headset, how to get rid of it”? Looking at the screen of the VR headset as at any other screen of mobile phone for a long time can cause eyes tiredness and tension. When we are observing the screen of our gadget, we blink more rarely. That is why your eyes start drying and getting tired. “Are virtual reality headsets dangerous for our eyes”? There are two small LCD monitors in a VR headset which project a picture for each eye separately and create the effect of depth. Monitors are located close to eyes. That is a factor that confuses the parents. Actually, there is a reason to be anxious. A long focusing on a picture, whether it’s on a screen of your mobile phone or TV, can cause poor eyesight. Measure is an important thing here. It is better to use such devices up to 2–3 hours per day. This is a safe period of time approved by ophthalmologists. Does VR influence on the brain? It really influences the human brain. VR helps us in many ways: from restoring the muscles after the injuries to curing dizziness and other illnesses. We know for sure, VR triggers the feeling of empathy, controls the dreams and even contributes to progress in rehabilitation after the complex operations. Certainly, there were some cases of side effects after long using the VR devices but there’s no need to panic. The truth is the simulators were created a long time before the appearance of VR. Pilots had been using it while practising in flying, back in the ’70s. Gregory Garvey, the author of the virtual reality studies, admits that the appearance of side effects is still a rare case. If you have ever experienced the symptoms of psychological disorders, you better to limit the use of VR helmets. Parents should not be worried. With proper usage and considering the time limits, the VR headsets do not influence the children’s health. VR producers also keep improving the quality of their products, making them more safe and convenient. P.S. VR Planetarium works with both Samsung Gear VR and Oculus Go which are absolutely safe for students during a session.

Are the VR headsets harmful to the children’s health? Virtual reality can move us to the battlefield, underwater world, outer space or any place overnight. Considering the fact that VR manufacturers keep designing new devices, apps, and games that offer kids and teenagers to experience the effect of full immersion, the parents are getting anxious. Do the VR headsets harm the health of their children? We decided to dispel myths and provide answers to the most frequent questions. VR manufacturers keep designing new devices, apps, and games that offer kids and teenagers to experience the effect of full immersion. “Why do manufacturers set the age limits”? The most of VR headsets producers highlight the age limit. It is recommended to use VR devices only if you are older than 12. At the same time, the ophthalmologists admit that there are no researches proving the negative impact of VR technology on the functions of the eye. “The age limit should exist only for content. The technology itself does not harm the children’s health”, says the ophthalmologists Stephen Lipskiy. “I feel dizziness while using VR headset, is it ok”? Staring at the moving picture in virtual reality sends the same signal to the brain as you observe the physical objects in real life. This is the only one reason why you can feel dizziness or nausea. If you suffer from motion sickness on a roller coaster, in the car or on the boat so that you definitely feel the same while using a VR headset. It’s not about VR, it’s about your vestibular system. “Eyes get quite tired when wearing VR headset, how to get rid of it”? Looking at the screen of the VR headset as at any other screen of mobile phone for a long time can cause eyes tiredness and tension. When we are observing the screen of our gadget, we blink more rarely. That is why your eyes start drying and getting tired. “Are virtual reality headsets dangerous for our eyes”? There are two small LCD monitors in a VR headset which project a picture for each eye separately and create the effect of depth.

no

Virtual Reality

Are Virtual Reality headsets harmful to eyesight?

yes_statement

"virtual" reality "headsets" are "harmful" to "eyesight".. using "virtual" reality "headsets" damages "eyesight".

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/opening-new-realms-learning-exploring-possibilities-virtual-maqsood

Opening New Realms of Learning: Exploring the Possibilities and ...

Opening New Realms of Learning: Exploring the Possibilities and Limitations of Virtual Reality in Education Maryam Maqsood Passionate Educator, a Teacher a.k.a Superhero The potential affordances and constraints of virtual reality in education Many #benefits come with #virtualreality, such as the ability to observe objects in #threedimensions and learn about them #riskfree. Through #internetservices, virtual reality can also assist in gaining #knowledge and #confidence. Students feel eager to learn something new with the #help of #VR. Students can explore the world in virtual reality instead of sitting through tedious #lectures; for instance, they can explore nature through virtual reality (VR). Some people may find the typical #classroomenvironment#boring, which may hinder their ability to continuously be interested in learning. The advent of a VR facility in the #modernworld may allow the entire world to fit inside a small #classroom (Inceoglu & Ciloglugil, 2022). The students may be able to apply any concept they have previously learned in a #virtualsetting. As a result, they will be able to observe and discover even the smallest details about the concept with great detail and interest. Even for those who dislike traditional methods of instruction, it can make learning more enjoyable and restore their interest in it. #ClassVR, which gives the impression that you are in a classroom, is considered one of the most well-known examples of a VR application (Autor et al., 2020). There are countless instances where using virtual reality in a classroom setting benefits students of all academic disciplines. By enhancing their vision and giving them close-up experiences that mimic real life, for instance, understanding anatomy is made simpler for biology students. The video game Inmind 2, which teaches about the neurosciences of the brain, serves as an example. You can download applications like "Unimersiv" to learn more about new topics like nature, space, or anatomy. With the aid of software such as #EarthAR, you can find locations on Earth that are out of your reach. One example is software such as "#Tiltbrush," which enables the creation of three-dimensional art. All of these examples transform learning into a fun game for the students, taking them away from the monotony of the classroom environment and onto #newadventures (McGovern et al., 2020). Virtual reality (VR) would be chosen as the best #educationalinvention by everyone if voting were to be conducted for any classroom learning technology. However, there are drawbacks to adopting VR. Developing a VR addiction is very easy, which could harm eyesight and brain activity (Gentile, 2021). Because of the potential for a slow #addiction, a lack of #outdooractivity can also be harmful to your health. Some might argue that students were learning all of these skills in real-world field experiences back when these technologies were not developed. All of the lessons that a VR system might teach can be learned through actual field trips or hands-on exercises (Gentile, 2021). Therefore, discussion can be either in #favor of or #against these claims. Based on the resources available in their environments, various nations offer different educational styles. Every economy has a different level of technological and digital affordability for educational purposes. This is the main reason why there are so many different educational systems in use today. Due to the poor economic climate and oversaturation in the educational sector, organizations may find it more difficult to #supervisestudents' in-person field trips and practical experiences. Installing an educational VR system might not be as expensive as going on field trips or using expensive materials for practical purposes. However, this only needs a single financial investment and then can be used indefinitely at no additional cost. For #cosmology or science students, the development of science fiction in the form of a "#metaverse" can lead to online hypothetical iterations and #realworld adventures (Lin et al., 2022). This can improve the learning environment a thousandfold, making it enjoyable and enlightening. Utilizing virtual reality and augmented reality, only headsets can help create a single, #universal, and immersive virtual world that serves as the learning environment. While seated in their classroom, the students can observe the entire world in front of them. There may be a lot of arguments against the use of VR as a #toolforeducation. Not all educational institutions might be able to install and use such expensive equipment. Discrimination in education may occur as a result of some people having more resources than others. As a result, this can lead to negative attitudes toward learning as well as decreased motivation and performance in the classroom. Due to the economic inequalities within and between nations, #educationaldiscrimination is already on the increase. The #accessibility of educational VR facilities to some people may intensify this #discrimination (Corlatean, 2020). As a result, students from disadvantaged backgrounds might endure more #hardship and sense more deprivation. The relationship between students and teachers may also suffer as a result of the VR educational tools. Because there is little to no human involvement in #VRbasedcourses and learning, it is just students and software. The lack of student input also increases the class' dependence on the software, which has a lack of flexibility. Given that learning is not a set activity, each student learns at a different rate, so VR-based classrooms may be disadvantageous for students who have special needs. The core idea behind modern educational #technology is high-quality education. I have high hopes for this module because there are many different aspects to the theory of modern educational technology. To investigate the ways and means for developing high-quality education, this module may help to elaborate on modern educational technology theory and quality education. It can guide every aspect of theory and how to use it to improve learning. As a result, it will assist in enhancing education using contemporary educational theory. Any form of education today would be incomplete without access to the internet and information technology. We might be able to determine how to use technological resources more effectively to raise educational standards and quality. After completing this module, it will be possible for us to use technology-related education to explain all other learning theories, such as #behaviorism, #cognitivism, #constructivism, #constructionism, etc. Corlatean, T. (2020, June). Risks, discrimination and opportunities for education during the times of COVID-19 pandemic. In Proceedings of the 17th Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies Conference (pp. 37-46).

All of these examples transform learning into a fun game for the students, taking them away from the monotony of the classroom environment and onto #newadventures (McGovern et al., 2020). Virtual reality (VR) would be chosen as the best #educationalinvention by everyone if voting were to be conducted for any classroom learning technology. However, there are drawbacks to adopting VR. Developing a VR addiction is very easy, which could harm eyesight and brain activity (Gentile, 2021). Because of the potential for a slow #addiction, a lack of #outdooractivity can also be harmful to your health. Some might argue that students were learning all of these skills in real-world field experiences back when these technologies were not developed. All of the lessons that a VR system might teach can be learned through actual field trips or hands-on exercises (Gentile, 2021). Therefore, discussion can be either in #favor of or #against these claims. Based on the resources available in their environments, various nations offer different educational styles. Every economy has a different level of technological and digital affordability for educational purposes. This is the main reason why there are so many different educational systems in use today. Due to the poor economic climate and oversaturation in the educational sector, organizations may find it more difficult to #supervisestudents' in-person field trips and practical experiences. Installing an educational VR system might not be as expensive as going on field trips or using expensive materials for practical purposes. However, this only needs a single financial investment and then can be used indefinitely at no additional cost. For #cosmology or science students, the development of science fiction in the form of a "#metaverse" can lead to online hypothetical iterations and #realworld adventures (Lin et al., 2022). This can improve the learning environment a thousandfold, making it enjoyable and enlightening. Utilizing virtual reality and augmented reality, only headsets can help create a single, #universal, and immersive virtual world that serves as the learning environment. While seated in their classroom, the students can observe the entire world in front of them.

yes

Numismatics

Are all pre-1965 US quarters made of 90% silver?

yes_statement

all "pre-1965" us "quarters" are made of "90"% "silver".. "pre-1965" us "quarters" are composed of "90"% "silver".. the "silver" content of all "pre-1965" us "quarters" is "90"%.

https://www.gainesvillecoins.com/blog/junk-silver-faqs-90-percent-silver-coins

Junk Silver FAQS: Must-Know Facts About 90% Silver Coins

Junk Silver FAQs: Must-Know Facts About 90% Silver Coins Many people have all kinds of questions about 90% junk silver coins. We at Gainesville Coins would love to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about these silver coins here. ###What are junk silver coins?### Junk silver coins have two main characteristics. 1.) They are common-date silver coins. 2.) They are encountered in grades usually just below a threshold considered collectible for its type. Silver Washington Quarter Among the most widely sold junk silver coins are the 90% silver [Roosevelt dimes](/blog/roosevelt-dime-values), [Washington quarters](/blog/washington-quarter-key-dates-varieties), later-date (post-1933) [Walking Liberty half dollars](/blog/walking-liberty-half-dollar-value), [Franklin half dollars](/blog/most-valuable-franklin-half-dollars), and 1964 Kennedy half dollars that grade below Very Fine-20 to Extremely Fine-40. This isn’t necessarily a rule, but it’s a fair representation of a typical junk silver coin. Technically, any silver coin worth only its bullion value could be considered junk silver. However, even common-date Barber coinage and Standing Liberty quarters are numismatically collectible in the grade of About Good-3 or even cull state. Thus these earlier pieces are generally not included in generic junk silver offerings. **BOTTOM LINE:** Any silver coin worth only its bullion value could be considered "junk silver," but the phrase usually refers to common 90% silver U.S. coins. ##Buying Junk Silver Coins## If you're interested in buying junk silver, you can click the button above to visit our category page or check out some of the products listed here: For more frequently asked questions, read on below! ###What is the best junk silver coin to buy?### There may not be a "best" junk silver coin to buy. Yet you will often pay a slightly lower numismatic premium, gram for gram, when you buy coins in bulk. Some of the silver coins with the highest numismatic premiums per coin (ergo, most expensive) are the [35% silver war nickels](/blog/silver-nickel-values) of 1942 through 1945 and 40% silver Kennedy half dollars struck from 1965 through 1970. Surely, these are worthwhile coins to buy! But you might find you get a little more silver for your money when buying 90% junk silver coins. These include pre-1965 dimes, quarters, and half dollars. **BOTTOM LINE:** In general, 90% junk silver coins are more cost-effective than coins with lower purities. ###What US coins are 90% silver?### A bunch! In fact, all dimes, quarters, half dollars, and dollar coins minted for circulation before 1965 are made from a 90% silver composition. The exception is if those denominations struck before the 1840s, when they were minted from an 89.24% silver composition. Here is a list of all United States 90% silver coins minted for circulation during the 20th century: * Barber dimes (1892–1916) * Mercury dimes (1916–1945) * Roosevelt dimes (1946–1964) * Barber quarters (1892–1916) * Standing Liberty quarters (1916–1930) * Washington quarters (1932–1964) * Barber half dollars (1892–1915) * Walking Liberty half dollars (1916–1947) * Franklin half dollars (1948–1963) * Kennedy half dollars (1964) * Morgan dollars (1878–1921) * Peace dollars (1921–1935) Again, this list above includes only coins struck for circulation. There are many collector-only strikes that have been made since the 1980s and 1990s that are 90% silver (or purer) in composition but were never formally released into or intended for regular circulation. **BOTTOM LINE:** All U.S. coins with a face value above 10¢ that were made before 1965 are 90% silver. ###How much silver is in a $1,000 bag?### A $1,000 bag of silver means there are enough silver coins in that bag to equate to $1,000 face value. This may represent any combination of coins to arrive at that figure. If all coins in a $1,000 face value bag of silver consist of just one denomination, the number of coins is as follows: * dimes: 10,000 * quarters: 4,000 * half dollars: 2,000 * silver dollars: 1,000 Some coin dealers will offer bags of silver composed of only one denomination. Others will offer so-called mixed bags, using a variety of coins to equate $1,000 in face value. Bag of 90% silver coins **A typical $1,000 bag of silver contains approximately 723 troy ounces of silver.** However, this assumes the coins in that bag are in average-circulated condition. In other words, they're not overly worn. A bag full of 2,000 slick (worn nearly flat) half dollars will surely contain less than 723 ounces of silver. That's due to the metal loss through wear over time. This reason in itself explains why it's absolutely critical to buy silver from a [reputable coin shop or bullion dealer](/info/why-choose-gc). These sellers can be trusted to provide a fair deal and quality coins, even in a sight-unseen transaction such as one involving a sealed bag of silver. **BOTTOM LINE:** A bag of $1,000 face value junk silver coins will contain slightly less than 723 troy ounces of fine silver. ###Should I buy junk silver coins?### If you’re looking to invest in precious metals but don’t have a lot of money to buy gold coins, platinum coins, or other types of more expensive bullion items, then junk silver coins may be worth buying. There are many advantages to buying junk silver coins. In addition to their relatively low nominal cost, an old junk silver coin is just that—money. It can be spent like any other coin. Some people prefer to buy junk silver if they are ever in a dire situation in which they would need to barter silver coins for survival items like food, water, blankets, lodging, or other necessities. There is also the remote—but nonetheless possible—chance that the price of silver could drop below the face value of the coin. In that case, the coin still has guaranteed legal-tender monetary value. Another benefit to buying junk silver coins is that they enjoy a crossover market with coin collectors. Many collectors seek such silver coins—even common-date, low-grade pieces—to fill holes in albums, folders, and displays. There is also the possibility that a keen-eyed collector (or silver stacker) may spot a valuable error or variety on one of these junk silver coins. It would be a worthy find that might make the coin redeemable for far more than its intrinsic bullion value! **BOTTOM LINE:** There are a variety of compelling reasons to buy junk silver coins. ###Should I buy silver bars or coins?### It’s a question of whether you would rather buy silver at the lowest possible premium or pay a little more but also enjoy better liquidity. Gram for gram, [silver bars as well as silver rounds](/blog/coins-vs-rounds) are usually cheaper than legal-tender silver coins. This is so for a variety of reasons, including low production costs and processing fees. There is also a much smaller pool of collectors and potential buyers. If you’re looking for the absolute cheapest method to buy silver, silver bars and rounds are often the way to go. But silver coins, for their slightly higher price, offer many things a silver bar can’t. For one, coins are legal-tender money, while bullion bars aren’t. You really can’t pay for a meal at a restaurant with a silver bar. You can’t trade silver bars at your bank to deposit funds into your savings account. But with silver coins? You can do all those things and a whole lot more because they’re real, hard money. You may not wish to spend your silver coins at face value. But if you have to, you can. Silver coins are also much more widely recognizable to buyers than silver bars. Some folks may not trust buying a silver bar—especially one from an off-brand. This can make a silver bar harder to sell at fair market value, especially if you’re trying to sell to someone outside the bullion industry. But a 1939 Mercury dime, 1946 silver Washington quarter, 1947 Walking Liberty half dollar, 1958 Franklin half dollar, or 1964 Kennedy half dollar? You can bet your bottom dollar that virtually everybody will recognize those coins and understand their inherent value. You can read more about comparing [silver coins vs. silver bars](/blog/silver-coins-vs-silver-bars) by following this link. **BOTTOM LINE:** Silver bars are generally less expensive that comparable silver coins, but coins enjoy better liquidity. Junk silver Walking Liberty half dollars ###Is it better to buy junk silver or bullion?### It all depends. First, let’s differentiate junk silver and bullion here for the purpose of answering this question. Technically all coins with precious metal content could be considered “bullion.” For the sake of clarity, we'll classify junk silver as something distinct from investment-grade, high-purity silver bullion. Most [silver bullion coins](/category/2254/silver-coins) are sold in weights of no less than one ounce. That’s much heavier than the amount of pure silver in a dime, quarter, half dollar, or even a standard pre-1971 silver dollar. So, you will usually have to pay more in the absolute sense per coin to buy silver bullion coinage versus what you might spend buying individual silver dimes, quarters, half dollars, and silver dollars. Of course, most silver bullion bars and coins have a higher precious metal content than the typical [90% silver junk coin](/category/407/90-percent-silver-coins). This can mean paying a lower numismatic premium gram for gram per coin than you might spend on buying smaller pre-1965 silver coins. In other words, you’ll likely pay a lower price for each gram of silver in a silver bullion coin versus what you’d pay for each gram of silver in a lot of junk silver coins. And an added benefit of buying silver bullion coins? Many are [eligible for inclusion in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs)](/ira). Still, junk silver coins have their own neat perks. They are nostalgic. They can be easily spent as money, which could become useful in emergency scenarios or disasters. And 90% silver coins do have a numismatic crossover appeal that helps to widen their market base (and enhance liquidity). So, there isn’t necessarily always a better buy. The decision to accumulate junk silver or bullion is a determination you should make by defining what your silver investing goals are. Ask yourself: What are you willing to risk in terms of cost and liquidity? What financial goals are you hoping to achieve over the long run? **BOTTOM LINE:** Junk silver coins and investment-grade bullion each have their own advantages and disadvantages. ###What silver coins should I buy?### The prices of silver coins are all over the board. Some are really cheap while others are quite expensive. However, price alone may not dictate what silver coins you should buy. You might care less about the price of your silver coins and rather spend more attention buying a certain type of silver coin(s). As silver investing goes, sometimes it's not just about stacking the tallest pile of silver at the lowest price. It's also about buying a certain type of silver coin—or silver product—you like and have faith in as an investment. They can act as a hedge against inflation over the duration of months, years, or decades. On the whole, 90% junk silver coins are affordable for the average consumer. Still, they may cost more, gram for gram, than most investment-quality bullion coins, such as the [American Silver Eagle](/category/43/american-silver-eagles). Both types of silver coin are highly liquid, but the 90% silver coins can be more easily spent as regular money in an emergency. They also have the crossover marketability as collectible coins, with the chance that some may contain overlooked varieties or errors. However, American Silver Eagles have a higher silver purity (.999 fine versus 90% silver for the pre-1965 circulating coins). Silver Eagles can be used in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), as well. Additionally, [Canadian Silver Maple Leafs](/category/472/canadian-silver-maple-leafs) and other popular silver bullion coins are highly liquid. This means they have a large, ready marketplace. These factors can help you determine what type of silver coin is best for your investment goals. **BOTTOM LINE:** There are many different types of silver coins; each caters to different tastes and investing goals. ##Selling Junk Silver Coins## ###How much do you get for junk silver coins?### Someone selling 90% junk silver coins will typically receive an amount at or just below the current spot price. Silver half dollars For example, let's say you’re selling a roll of 90% silver pre-1965 Washington quarters and silver is $20 per ounce. The 40 Washington quarters in that roll are worth a cumulative total of approximately $144.68. You may expect to make somewhere between $130 and $140 if you’re selling to a standard retail dealer or bullion broker. You will most likely not receive full melt value in that scenario. Why? Because the coin shop, bullion broker, or other business owner you’re selling your coins to needs to cover overhead costs and still make a living, too. Paying these costs helps the business stick around so you’ve got a place to [sell your junk silver coins!](/sell-coins) **BOTTOM LINE:** Expect to be paid just under melt value for your junk silver coins when you sell. ###How do I sell my silver?### You can sell your silver by offering it to a coin dealer or bullion broker. These are the types of professionals who are best trained and experienced in knowing the true value of the silver items you’re offering to sell them. They can give you the best price, too. Before visiting a coin dealer or bullion agent, be sure to call or send them an email to find out if you have to make an appointment to visit. You should also make sure they buy the type of silver items you wish to sell. **BOTTOM LINE:** The easiest method for selling your silver is to consult a reputable coin dealer or bullion broker. ###What is the best way to sell silver coins?### Some silver coins are worth only their melt value, while others are scarcer or higher quality and may be worth significantly more. A reputable and skilled coin dealer will be able to tell the difference between the silver coins that are worth merely their intrinsic metal content versus those worth a significant numismatic premium. Therefore, the best way to sell silver coins is to take them to a coin dealer or bullion broker who is also knowledgeable in rare and collectible silver coins. **BOTTOM LINE:** The best way to sell your silver coins is to consult a reputable coin dealer or bullion broker. ###Is it better to sell junk silver coins for melt?### Some silver coins are worth more for their numismatic attributes than for their precious metal content. This is particularly true with higher-grade silver coins. It also applies to older (early 20th-century and earlier) coinage, or scarce dates. If you have the time to go through your 90% silver coin holdings, it might be worth the effort searching for overlooked scarce dates and varieties. If your silver coins are ordinary and neither scarce nor boasting any varieties or errors, it’s probably better to sell your coins for as close to melt value as possible. **BOTTOM LINE:** Be sure to check your junk silver coins for rarities, varieties, and errors if you have the time. Otherwise, selling junk silver for melt is fine. ###Where can I sell my junk silver?### Coin shops and bullion brokerage firms are usually the best places to sell your silver coins. Such places are generally staffed by experts who know the current prices of silver and can give you a fair offer. Be sure you only sell your silver to reputable coin dealers or bullion brokers who are [accredited by the Better Business Bureau (BBB)](https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/lutz/profile/coin-dealers/gainesville-coins-llc-0653-90062909). These dealers are known and trusted by coin collectors, precious metals investors, and others involved in the bullion industry. **BOTTOM LINE:** You can always sell your junk silver for a fair price at a reputable coin dealer or bullion broker. ###Where can I sell my junk silver coins for melt value?### You can sell your silver coins for melt value by taking them to a coin dealer or bullion broker who is offering to buy silver coins. Bear in mind that bullion businesses need to pay for overhead costs, advertising fees, and other day-to-day necessities. Therefore, they may not be able to pay exactly melt value but are usually offering to pay within a few percentage points of that price point. **BOTTOM LINE:** Coin dealers and bullion brokers will pay the best price for your junk silver coins. ###What do pawn shops pay for junk silver?### Pawn shops will pay different prices for silver depending on the individual store, and these prices change day by day. However, it is not recommended to sell your silver—or any bullion or rare and collectible coins—to pawn shops. A typical pawn shop’s main purpose is to offer collateral-based loans. While many pawnbrokers are reputable and upstanding businesspersons, their primary concern isn’t necessarily in buying and selling bullion items. Just as you wouldn’t go to your local auto detailer to fix your car’s transmission, you shouldn’t be buying and selling silver at a pawn shop. It’s best to visit a reputable coin dealer or bullion broker to buy or sell silver. **BOTTOM LINE:** Pawnbrokers are not necessarily coin and bullion experts, so you should avoid selling your junk silver to a pawn shop. ##Junk Silver Prices & Investing## Stacks of silver Barber quarters ###How much should I pay for junk silver coins?### Bullion prices vary day to day, so publishing a fixed dollar amount here that you should pay for buying 90% silver is infeasible and impractical. The price would be outdated almost the moment this webpage was published. What you should consider when deciding what a fair price is to pay for junk silver coins is the [current spot price](/charts/silver-spot-price). Try paying as close to that figure as you can. Remember that you’re likely to encounter a small retail premium above that regardless of where you shop. **BOTTOM LINE:** Try to pay as close to spot price as possible when buying junk silver coins. ###What is a fair premium for junk silver?### If you’re paying less than 10% over spot for junk silver then you’re doing extremely well. Of course, this assumes that the silver coins you’re buying in such a transaction are of decent quality. That means the coins aren’t too well worn, damaged, or otherwise pose a risk that you’re actually getting substantially less silver than you would ordinarily expect for the deal. Remember, you get what you pay for! As long as you’re paying less than 15% to 20% over spot price, you are in fair pricing territory. Bear in mind that investing in silver isn’t usually a game of profitable overnight flips. Many folks who buy silver do so for the long haul. They wait for long-term price appreciations or other acute market factors before making the decision to sell their silver. **BOTTOM LINE:** 15% to 20% over spot is a fair premium for junk silver. ###How do I get silver below spot price?### As someone buying silver in a retail setting, the only way you can reasonably expect to find silver for below spot is to locate silver coins in circulation. Effectively paying only 10 cents for a 90% silver dime, 25 cents for a 90% silver quarter, or 50 cents for a 90% silver half dollar is a pretty good bargain, wouldn’t you say? With a little luck, you might just land such finds in pocket change. Silver coins do turn up from time to time in circulation. You can increase your odds of finding silver coins at face value by searching rolls and boxes of coins from your bank. **BOTTOM LINE:** The only way to get silver below spot price is to find a silver coin in pocket change. ###Should I buy silver rounds or junk silver coins?### Both silver rounds and silver coins have their pros and cons. Like silver bars, silver rounds represent one of the cheapest avenues for buying silver. However, they aren’t legal tender and they aren’t necessarily as easy to sell as silver coins. Silver coins usually do come with higher premiums, but they *are* legal tender coins that can be spent as money. Silver coins are very liquid, in large part thanks to their crossover appeal with coin collectors and widespread popularity in the general marketplace. **BOTTOM LINE:** Junk silver coins are usually more expensive than silver rounds of comparable weight, but they are also more liquid. ###Are 90% silver coins a good investment?### We cannot predict whether you will see a return on your profit if you buy 90% silver coins. But it is the historical case that 90% silver coins have performed quite well for many people who have invested in them. Remember, 90% silver coins have at least two strong market areas: the precious metals buyer and coin collectors. At times when silver coins temporarily drop in value due to the price of silver falling, one might be able to recoup those losses by selling the coins to numismatic collectors who need silver coins of certain dates and mintmarks to fill holes in their collections. **BOTTOM LINE:** Junk silver coins are one of the most cost-effective ways of investing in silver. 90 percent silver coins ###Why is junk silver so expensive?### Junk silver coins may be more expensive than silver rounds or silver bars, but they carry several advantages: * Junk silver coins are legal tender, so they can be easily spent as money. * Pre-1965 United States silver coins have the backing of the United States government. * 90% silver coins enjoy a huge numismatic market, meaning there are more avenues for selling your junk silver coins. Depending on whether you’re trying to accumulate silver as cheaply as possible or hoping to maximize on liquidity, junk silver may or may not be the best investment vehicle for you. It’s nevertheless one of the most popular and affordable methods for storing silver. **BOTTOM LINE:** Junk silver coins offer several advantages over generic silver bars or silver rounds, and thus command slightly higher prices. ##Junk Silver Coin Values## ###Are old silver coins worth anything? What is the value of old silver coins?### Yes! All dimes, quarters, and half dollars made after the 1830s and before 1965 are made from a 90% silver composition. These are automatically worth at least their melt value—i.e. many times their face value. Some of these old silver coins are rare and valuable and thus worth even more than their silver content. You can [search our ever-growing list of articles](/blog) that address which of these coins are collectible. There are also many guidebooks that can teach you which silver coins are worth saving due to their inherent rarity and numismatic value. **BOTTOM LINE:** Old silver coins are automatically worth at least their melt value, and often much more. ###How much is a silver dime worth?### 90% silver Mercury dimes This largely depends on the date, mintmark, and condition of the coin. In most cases, well-worn common-date silver dimes are worth prices quite near their spot intrinsic values. ###How much is a 90% silver dime worth? How much is a junk silver dime worth in scrap?### The value of a 90% silver dime can change literally minute by minute based on the prevailing price of silver—a commodity whose value constantly fluctuates. However, you might find this chart below with silver dime value approximations useful: Junk Silver Dime Prices Silver Price Per Ounce 90% Silver Dime Value $10 72¢ $12 87¢ $14 $1.01 $16 $1.16 $18 $1.30 $20 $1.45 $22 $1.59 ###How much is a silver quarter worth?### The date, mintmark, and individual condition of a coin are all factors in determining what it is worth. However, most well-circulated, common-date silver quarters made since the mid-1930s are worth their intrinsic metal value. Washington silver quarters ###What is the melt value of a junk silver quarter?### Values of 90% silver quarters are always on the move with the ever-changing metals market. So, one way to answer this question is to provide a graph of what a typical silver quarter is worth in terms of its silver content. You'll find these calculations below, based on different silver price points: Junk Silver Quarter Prices Silver Price Per Ounce 90% Silver Quarter Value $10 $1.81 $12 $2.17 $14 $2.53 $16 $2.89 $18 $3.26 $20 $3.62 $22 $3.98 ###How much is a silver 50 cent worth?### As with any coin, the date, mintmark, and condition are all important factors in determining the value of any individual half dollar, including silver half dollars. Most well-circulated common-date silver half dollars made since 1934 are worth their intrinsic silver value. Kennedy half dollars ###What is a 90% silver half dollar worth?### Want to know what a 90% silver half dollar is worth? Most circulated common-date silver half dollars made since the 1930s are worth only their intrinsic value. The guide below will help give you an idea what your halves may be worth contingent on the [current price of silver per ounce](/charts/silver-spot-price). Junk Silver Half Dollar Prices Silver Price Per Ounce 90% Silver Half Dollar Value 40% Silver Half Dollar Value (1965–1970) $10 $3.62 $1.48 $12 $4.34 $1.77 $14 $5.06 $2.07 $16 $5.79 $2.37 $18 $6.51 $2.66 $20 $7.23 $2.96 $22 $7.96 $3.25 ##Other Questions About Junk Silver## ###How do you tell if a coin is silver or clad?### In the most basic sense, you can usually determine whether a dime, quarter, half dollar, or dollar coin is clad or silver based on its date. Dimes and quarters produced before 1965 are made from silver. All those made afterward, except for some collector-only issues, are clad. Half dollars struck before 1965 are also 90% silver, while those struck between 1965 through 1970 are made from a debased 40% silver clad composition. All circulating half dollars issued from 1971 to date are made from copper-nickel clad. Meanwhile, silver dollars minted for circulation up through 1935 are struck from a 90% silver composition. Circulating issues made afterward were produced in clad. There are a couple caveats here. For one, there are those aforementioned silver-based, collector-only issues. Then there are a handful of errors involving coins that were intended to be struck in clad format but accidentally struck on silver planchets. Any coins you suspect may be off-metal errors or transitional errors should be weighed to determine their composition and submitted to a trusted numismatic professional, such as a major third-party coin grading service, for further testing, authentication, and official attribution. **BOTTOM LINE:** Simply checking the date of a coin (pre-1965 or post-1965) will usually tell you if it is clad or silver. ###Why did they stop using silver coins?### The United States government stopped making silver coins for circulation because it got too expensive. The price of silver bullion rose above $1 in the early 1960s. That is when the amount of silver in 90% silver dimes, quarters, and half dollars began exceeding the face value on the coins. When this happened, many in the public found it more profitable to hoard these silver coins for their valuable precious metal content rather than to spend the coins for face value. This helped lead to a major coin shortage in 1963 and 1964. It persuaded government officials to choose a cheaper metal for minting dimes, quarters, and half dollars. (Dollar coins were not officially being produced at this time.) After experimentation, United States Treasury and United States Mint officials decided on a copper-nickel clad composition. Basically, the coins used a pure copper "sandwich" between two copper-nickel outer layers. This was the best choice for minting coinage without compromising the acceptability of these coins in commerce, vending machines, and elsewhere. **BOTTOM LINE:** The government stopped using silver coins because their silver content became too valuable (i.e. above their face value). ###What year did coins stop using silver?### The United States phased out the use of silver in circulating coins over the course of the 1960s and early 1970s. The first changes came in 1965, when silver was completely removed from new dimes and quarters. Half dollars saw the share of silver in their composition drop from 90% to just 40%. By the late 1960s, the United States government began planning the full debasement of the half dollar. The last regular-issue 40% silver half dollar was struck in 1970. Beginning in 1971, no circulating United States coinage was struck with any amount of silver. **BOTTOM LINE:** U.S. coins stopped using 90% silver in 1964. Half dollars were still 40% silver until 1970. ###What year did they stop putting silver in dimes?### The last circulating silver dimes are dated 1964, and the United States Mint began striking copper-nickel clad dimes in 1965. However, it should be noted that the United States Mint began issuing 90% silver dimes again in 1992 for collectors only. These more recent silver dimes were sold only in proof sets and other special mint products. In other words, they were not formally released into circulation. Junk silver coins ###How many junk silver dimes does it take to make an ounce of silver?### A standard pre-1965 90% dime contains 0.07234 troy ounce of pure silver. So, if by “ounce” we mean “troy ounce,” which is the most accurate way to translate the weight of silver coins in the context of an ounce, the calculations suggest **we would need 13.8 pre-1965 90% silver dimes to arrive at a full troy ounce.** Since you can’t buy dimes in increments of tenths, it’s best to buy 14 silver dimes if you want to have at least one troy ounce of silver in dimes. ###How many junk silver quarters make an ounce?### There is 0.18084 troy ounce of pure silver in a standard pre-1965 90% silver quarter. So, **it takes about 5.5 pre-1965 90% silver quarters to have a full troy ounce of silver.** Of course, you can’t really count half a coin in a real-world scenario. So if you want (at least) a full troy ounce of silver in pre-1965 quarters, it’s probably better to go over and aim for six. ###Is it illegal to melt junk silver coins?### As of this writing, it is legal to melt old silver coins in the United States. There are presently no silver coins being made for circulation in the United States. Therefore melting silver coins would have virtually no effect on the availability of coins in daily commerce. ###Is it worth melting down junk silver coins?### It probably isn't worth the time and hassle of melting down silver coins unless: 1. You own a melting furnace; and 2. You plan to use the melted silver for making your own silver items (bars, jewelry, etc.). In fact, if you’re looking to sell the silver, it will likely be easier to liquidate it in the form of coinage rather than in privately made bars or other objects. While most people know how much silver is in a pre-1965 dime, quarter, or half dollar and can trust the coin to be authentic, there really is no way for someone else to really know the purity or authenticity of your melted silver without assaying it. ###What can you do with junk silver?### Besides accumulate or sell it? Well, many people melt their junk silver so it can be sold as scrap or used to make other silver products. In many cases when people sell their junk silver coins, what ends up happening to them later is that they are melted by a refinery to produce silver ingots (silver bars) or other bullion items. ###Can I buy silver dollars at the bank?### If this question were asked anytime in the 1960s or earlier, the answer would have been an unequivocal and enthusiastic “YES!” However, over the past decades banks across the United States stopped stocking silver dollars as precious metals prices have increased. Also, the expectation that debts be paid on demand in silver is no longer mandated by United States law. Still, that does not mean you can’t incidentally find silver coins in bank rolls and in bank boxes. In fact, lucky and persistent silver stackers can occasionally locate 90% silver dimes, quarters, and half dollars as well as other silver coins in rolls and boxes from the bank. **BOTTOM LINE:** No, you can't buy silver dollars at the bank anymore. ---------- *Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez is a journalist, editor, and blogger who has won multiple awards from the Numismatic Literary Guild. He has also authored numerous books, including works profiling the history of the United States Mint and United States coinage.* **More from the author:** [How Much Is a Silver Dollar Worth?](/blog/how-much-silver-dollar-worth) [Silver Coins vs. Silver Bars](/blog/silver-coins-vs-silver-bars) [What Is a Silver Nickel Worth? (More Than You'd Expect!)](/blog/silver-nickel-values)

Dimes and quarters produced before 1965 are made from silver. All those made afterward, except for some collector-only issues, are clad. Half dollars struck before 1965 are also 90% silver, while those struck between 1965 through 1970 are made from a debased 40% silver clad composition. All circulating half dollars issued from 1971 to date are made from copper-nickel clad. Meanwhile, silver dollars minted for circulation up through 1935 are struck from a 90% silver composition. Circulating issues made afterward were produced in clad. There are a couple caveats here. For one, there are those aforementioned silver-based, collector-only issues. Then there are a handful of errors involving coins that were intended to be struck in clad format but accidentally struck on silver planchets. Any coins you suspect may be off-metal errors or transitional errors should be weighed to determine their composition and submitted to a trusted numismatic professional, such as a major third-party coin grading service, for further testing, authentication, and official attribution. **BOTTOM LINE:** Simply checking the date of a coin (pre-1965 or post-1965) will usually tell you if it is clad or silver. ###Why did they stop using silver coins?### The United States government stopped making silver coins for circulation because it got too expensive. The price of silver bullion rose above $1 in the early 1960s. That is when the amount of silver in 90% silver dimes, quarters, and half dollars began exceeding the face value on the coins. When this happened, many in the public found it more profitable to hoard these silver coins for their valuable precious metal content rather than to spend the coins for face value. This helped lead to a major coin shortage in 1963 and 1964. It persuaded government officials to choose a cheaper metal for minting dimes, quarters,

yes