Best Of

Life is music. And music is elegant math.

Kurzgesagt is on the job. Pointing out how shoddy AI information can lead to the rot of information online through an iterative process of AI using previous imperfect AI slop to remove any bit of trust remaining online. As well as other negative social effects from current AI.

While ethics and judgmentalism are not strictly identical, they are often intertwined in practice. Ethical reasoning involves making judgments about right and wrong, and when applied rigidly or without empathy, it can easily slip into judgmentalism.

Distinguishing between principled critique and unkind condemnation is important, but insisting that ethics is entirely separate from being judgmental overlooks how moral standards are inevitably experienced and enforced in social contexts.

Thus have I heard and found to be true:

There is not much that one cannot justify if one puts one’s mind to it. If one enjoys doing something and is told that it is unethical, one will look for ways to make it seem more ethical, to give oneself, or those who share the same unethical practice, peace of mind.

So it is with those who own guns, for they tell themselves it is for sport, for safety, or for freedom, while overlooking that the weapon they cherish was made for the taking of sentient life. Then they start to say, but a knife kills, and so the justification continues, forgetting that knives were made to carve and create, while guns were made to destroy.

Then some might say, who am I to judge another who chooses to own a gun, all the while continuing to justify something unethical. Some people justify killing, but if those carrying out the killing are not liked by them, then that is a different story.

This no doubt will make some uncomfortable, but Buddhism and Dharma practice can make one feel uncomfortable when facing one’s own shortcomings, reminding us that the hardest truth to face is often the one about ourselves. And I’ve been there and done that on more than one occasion.

This is why I can't stomach AI. Much of the time, it's wrong with its answers. (It's still a work-in-progress as an online resource. Still in the design phase.) Other times, all it can do is pull up random relevant info, without doing any thinking or analysis to go with it. Of course it doesn't analyze; it's not human!

Anyway, whether or not a Buddhist "should" own a gun depends on what the Buddhist would want to use it for. I've always enjoyed target practice, with a bow and arrow, or a gun. It's a harmless hobby or pastime. AI, however, can only envision anyone owning one for the purpose of killing. I find that ridiculous.

Sorry, AI: YOU'RE FIRED!

It is not true that guns have no purpose other than killing. Nonetheless, that's certainly why they were invented, and arguably remains their primary use. To not own weapons would seem to be a logical sub-precept, and was probably considered as such by Gautama, since his people, the Sakyas, followed his teachings and owned no weapons.

Shunryu Suzuki has said that we follow the precepts but are not bound by them. I would interpret this to mean that the precepts do not unburden us from the responsibility of making our own decisions. Life is complex, no generalization can be valid in every set of circumstances. But yes, I will concede that Buddhists should not own guns - that seems just as valid as any other generalization. Perhaps we shouldn't own fly swatters either.

Jane Goodall’s last recorded interview, she passed away on 1 October, 2025. What an inspiring and wonderful human being!

While I know that a lot of Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, I would recommend that anyone interested in the topic read books like "The Light Eaters" by Zoe Schlanger and tell me afterwards that plants aren't sentient - that is - being aware that they are alive and participating in life in ways we didn't previously comprehend. I see and experience it when spending time with plants and trees as well.

The newer science around plants has led me to believe that we can only be mindful and reverent about how, when, and why we take life to support our own. We can no longer defend being vegetarian/vegan as being less harmful because solely because they are lower on the sentient chain than we believe animals to be. That means that for any of us to survive, we are taking life. There is no way to avoid that.

I grew up hunting and fishing. As I mentioned before it supplements our family's food and kept us off welfare. As an animal lover from the time I was a small child, it wasn't the easiest part of life for me. But I would rather own my own karma, if needed, for taking the lives I take to sustain my own than to pass it off to someone else and pretend like it's not happening. I know so many people who are anti-hunting but who buy factory-farmed meat from the store. The disconnection is incredible to me. At least if I hunt or fish, I am owning that. And the animal lived a free life up to that point. I am not passing the buck onto the rancher or the butcher for my own survival.

Currently, we buy most of our meat locally from sustainable small, family-owned farms that we've visited. I just don't have it in me to hunt. But I think it's still, in a way, a "cowardly" way out of being accountable for my meat eating. Sometimes I would rather hunt and fish. I just don't have time. If I am going to eat meat, I'd rather be responsible for taking it and for the responsibility, reverence, and humility in doing so. I will never be a vegetarian. I do eat a lot of plants, and grow many fruits, veggies, and herbs. But I respect them no less. It's not really any easier for me to weed the garden than to kill a bug, knowing what I do now about plants.

I know this seems off topic 😂 but as a sometimes practicing Buddhist, I'd rather own the gun (or the garden shears) and own the responsibility to the lives I take to sustain myself than to pass it onto someone else. Animals or plants.