Ahimsa and Environmental Responsibility

Ahimsa is the principle of non-harming or non-violence towards living beings. Applied to the environment, it means considering how human choices affect other creatures, not merely avoiding direct violence against people.

For example, a person might not physically attack an animal but could still contribute to its suffering by damaging its habitat. Ahimsa therefore gives Hindus a reason to protect habitats, avoid cruelty and reduce pollution. Choosing a vegetarian diet can also be an expression of ahimsa because it avoids killing animals for food, although Hindu practices vary.

This connects environmental care with everyday choices. Reducing waste and unnecessary consumption can limit damage to the places where living beings survive. Environmental responsibility is therefore not only about appreciating nature: it involves changing behaviour to reduce harm.

Bhagavata Purana 7.14.9: animals deserve care

The Bhagavata Purana 7.14.9, also known as the Srimad-Bhagavatam, teaches that animals should be treated “exactly like one's own son”. It names deer, camels, asses, monkeys, mice, snakes, birds and flies.

The range matters. The teaching does not restrict care to attractive animals or familiar pets: even creatures that people may dislike or regard as pests are included. Comparing them with children encourages protection and nourishment rather than treating their lives as unimportant.

This supports practising ahimsa towards the environment. Animals need food and suitable places to live, so protecting them also requires concern for their surroundings. In Prabhupada's commentary on this verse, killing creatures with pesticides is criticised, and animals are described as having a claim to God's resources. This challenges the assumption that the natural world exists only for human use.

Bhagavad Gita 7.10: life has a divine source

In Bhagavad Gita 7.10, Krishna declares: “I am the original seed of all existences”. The image of a seed presents Krishna as the source from which life comes.

This gives a religious reason for respecting the natural world. If living things have their source in the divine, they should not be valued only for how useful they are to humans. Plants and animals belong within this concern, not just human beings.

The two passages support environmental responsibility in connected ways. The Bhagavad Gita provides a belief about life's divine source; the Bhagavata Purana gives a practical instruction about how animals should be treated. Together, they can encourage Hindus to care for living beings and use resources responsibly.

Humanist Climate Action: responsibility without religion

Humanists base moral decisions on reason, evidence and concern for wellbeing rather than divine commands. Humanist Climate Action is a volunteer-led network within Humanists UK which brings people together for individual and collective environmental action.

Its principles include following the best available scientific evidence, recognising a moral duty towards fellow beings and the natural world, and treating nature sustainably for current and future generations. Humans are understood as part of the wider natural world, not separate from it.

The network promotes low-carbon, ethical and sustainable living. It also supports environmentally friendly policies and rational debate about climate change and damage to biodiversity. Its activities include encouraging tree planting, writing to MPs to call for climate action, and supporting The Climate Coalition.

These examples show two levels of responsibility. Individuals can adopt greener lifestyles, while collective campaigning seeks changes in policies that affect many people. Concern for future generations and cooperation beyond one's immediate community express global citizenship.

Atheism means not believing in God; it does not by itself prescribe a particular environmental policy. An atheist may nevertheless support environmental action for Humanist reasons, such as preventing suffering and protecting the conditions needed for life.

Shared aims, different foundations

Hindu and Humanist approaches can agree that humans should reduce harm and protect the world for others. Their foundations differ: Hindu arguments can draw on ahimsa and the divine source of life, while Humanists appeal to evidence, wellbeing and responsibility within the natural world.

One argument for a religious foundation is that sacred teachings give environmental care a powerful moral importance: protecting living things becomes a duty rather than merely a preference. However, Humanist Climate Action shows that belief in God is not necessary for recognising environmental duties. Evidence of harm and concern for others can also motivate action.

There are practical tensions too. Protecting crops from pests can conflict with avoiding harm to animals. The Bhagavata Purana's inclusion of mice and flies makes this a serious ethical issue rather than allowing unwanted creatures to be dismissed. A response guided by ahimsa would seek ways to meet human needs while causing as little harm as possible.

A justified conclusion is that religious and non-religious reasoning can both support environmental responsibility. Their differences need not prevent cooperation, and strong moral commitments are most useful when they lead to effective individual choices and collective action.

• Ahimsa: extend non-harming to animals and their habitats; reduce cruelty, pollution and unnecessary environmental damage.
• Bhagavata Purana 7.14.9: treat animals like one's own children, including creatures regarded as pests. Supports care beyond human interests.
• Bhagavad Gita 7.10: Krishna is the “original seed of all existences”. Life's divine source gives a reason to respect plants and animals.

Humanist approach

• Humanist Climate Action: reason, science and concern for fellow beings and nature.
• Promote low-carbon, ethical, sustainable lifestyles and environmentally friendly policies.
• Named actions: tree planting, writing to MPs and supporting The Climate Coalition.
• Responsibility includes current and future generations; belief in God is not required.

Essential distinctions

• Environmental responsibility: duty to limit environmental harm.
• Sustainability: protect the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
• Global citizenship: responsibility beyond national borders.

Evaluation

Shared aim: reduce harm and protect the natural world. Different foundations: religious teachings and divine origins versus evidence and wellbeing. Consider practical conflicts, such as crop protection versus harm to pests, and whether commitments produce effective action.