Life is Sacred

I believe life is sacred. Probably most people do. But do we mean the same thing by those words?

'Sacred' is fairly straightforward. It has a religious definition - "entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things" - and a secular definition - "regarded with reverence." For me, the distinction is immaterial, because when life is sacred, I want to protect and preserve it.

'Life' is another matter. If I define 'sacred life' narrowly, as dictators do, then I protect myself and those around me (my family, my tribe, my regime), and I neglect (and might even kill) those who are outside my circle. Since the outsiders are not sacred, they are not worthy of protection.

Alternately, if I define life broadly, as many environmentalists do, then all life is sacred. In which case, I might risk my life to defend ecosystems against corporate plunder, and to protect endangered species from poachers.

Which definition of 'sacred life' serves humanity best at this time? Is it better to act selfishly and take care of myself and my family, and to discount my contributions to typhoons, floods and droughts? Or is it better to give up some of my luxuries and thereby reduce the rate of sea rise and slow the extinction of species?

Soldiers provide a good example of the consequences of each choice. When soldiers live according to a narrow definition of 'sacred life,' dividing the world into friend and foe, there is war. When they put down their weapons and expand their definition of 'sacred life' to include their former enemies, there is peace.

We can choose the kind of world we want. If we hold onto narrow definitions of sacred life, if we think that only humans are sacred, or that only some humans are sacred, then wars and environmental destruction will continue. However, if we expand our definition of sacred life to include others as well as nature, then we have the foundation for a peaceful, healthy future.

Assuming that most people would like to live on a peaceful, healthy planet, I must ask, Are we able to act consistent with an expanded belief that all life is sacred?

Bee deaths give us a chance to find out. For a decade now, commercial bee hives have been decimated by 'colony collapse disorder.' Since bees pollinate 30% of our food and many flowers, they're essential to us and nature. The suspected causes include monocultures, malnutrition, the Varroa mite, fungicides, pesticides (neonicotinoids) and the practices of commercial bee-keepers.

The consensus of peer-reviewed literature, and a 2014-study by researchers at Harvard University, point to neonicotinoids as the main culprit in CCD. Last year, Portland lost 42% of its hives, almost certainly due to household pesticides.

That pesticides kill bees should surprise no one. After all, they're designed to kill. Bees, though, are not pests. We need them. Life needs them. For my part, I can foreswear pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. But I am one small yard in a vast city, and Portland is a small city in a large country. If we really believe that life is sacred, can we act on that belief? Or are habit and lifestyle so deeply ingrained in us that saving the bees is unlikely, and probably impossible?