Is Deforestation Worse Than Killing Animals ?

[xHarinder_singh]

I have an online goraa friend who is a pretty nice aatma. He asked me this question:

Lets say there is a village covering 1000 acres of land. 20% land is residential area, 40% agricultural land and 40% land is covered by forests.

The 40% agricultural land is just enough to feed 5000 villagers. In 20 years time, the population of the village becomes 10,000. Now, the villagers have 2 options to survive:

1. start cutting forests and convert forest land into agricultural land.

2. start killing animals for food.

Which is a greater sin ?

[Harjeet.Singh]

Animals can never come back once killed, when cutting forests, atleast you can replant them after use by planting seeds so more trees grow. However by cutiing forests, you also destroy the natural habitat of alot of animals. So either way animals are being harmed. But where as animals can die off and be extinct, when trees die, they are still able to make more trees, because of nutrients in the soil and things that they drop, it is harder to make plants go out of extinction. Also if you make a farm, animals might be able to get food from it to. While farmers wouldn't like this, it is still beneficial to both humans and animals. But also to start killing animals, in large quantities, you would need slaughter houses, and for this you need room, so the trees would still probably have to go to.

I think the best option would be for the humans to move out, but if this is not possible, do whatever causes least damage, in the long term. I beleive killign animals is greater sin. Because you can cut forrests, but they will grow back, they animals that live there will be able to thrive again, after the forests grow back. But if they keep cutting forrests then there will be nothing left.

So i think, meat will run out quickly, cutting forests while harmful at first, in the long run, they can reappear.

[Singhson]

@Harjeet.Singh

You can cut down the trees and plant new ones but how long does it take them to become fully grown trees? Ages. It's a no win situation either way.

Cut down trees = animals die/lose trees

Kill animals = affect population

If I had to make the choice, I'd rather kill animals that won't have any detrimental effect on their population i.e. animals that breed often.

But I don't understand how you can call both of them sins...

[xHarinder_singh]

@Harjeet.Singh

You can cut down the trees and plant new ones but how long does it take them to become fully grown trees? Ages. It's a no win situation either way.

Cut down trees = animals die/lose trees

Kill animals = affect population

If I had to make the choice, I'd rather kill animals that won't have any detrimental effect on their population i.e. animals that breed often.

But I don't understand how you can call both of them sins...

By cutting trees ,we destroy natural habitat of many animals and those animals die painful deaths. Cutting forests also destroys environment, increases air pollution, increases green house gases, depletes richness of soil. Cutting forests is ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM.

[Harjeet.Singh]

Plants don't have a central nervous system, or a brain, they can't feel physical pain, plants were designed to serve the whole of animalia. If we cut alot of them, then we are being selfish, as we are only serving ourselves and not other creatures. But killing animals causes suffering aswell as cutting trees. Say if there were predators, that kept killing humans because they were hungry, we wouldn't like it and we'd fight back.

I'd say the only way to eat meat would be, to have a fair fight with an animal that wants to eat you. That means no weapons, just your God given shastars from birth. Fists, legs whatever. We have also got intelligence. It would only be right to use a weapon, say if you were fighting an ape, who picked up a stick or something. So if the animal is after you, and you are after it, then it is only right, that which ever animal wins, (human or whoever your fighting)gets to eat the loser. I think the only other right way to be able to eat meat, is say if an animal comes up to you and offers its head to you. Then you should chatka kill it, to minimise its pain. But seriously how many animals do you expect do offer their heads to a human. They might get good karma from it though.

[xHarinder_singh]

Plants don't have a central nervous system, or a brain, they can't feel physical pain, plants were designed to serve the whole of animalia. If we cut alot of them, then we are being selfish, as we are only serving ourselves and not other creatures. But killing animals causes suffering aswell as cutting trees. Say if there were predators, that kept killing humans because they were hungry, we wouldn't like it and we'd fight back.

I'd say the only way to eat meat would be, to have a fair fight with an animal that wants to eat you. That means no weapons, just your God given shastars from birth. Fists, legs whatever. We have also got intelligence. It would only be right to use a weapon, say if you were fighting an ape, who picked up a stick or something. So if the animal is after you, and you are after it, then it is only right, that which ever animal wins, (human or whoever your fighting)gets to eat the loser. I think the only other right way to be able to eat meat, is say if an animal comes up to you and offers its head to you. Then you should chatka kill it, to minimise its pain. But seriously how many animals do you expect do offer their heads to a human. They might get good karma from it though.

Thats a cute post, lol

I feel using guns to kill animals is unfair, but using sword or khanda is a fair battle. There is a gurdwara Sahib near Paunta Sahib, where Dashmesh pita did udhaar of a lion with His sword. That lion used to kill the villagers.