"Buddhist Economics" by E. F. Schumacher

I finally got around to reading the 1966 essay entitled Buddhist Economics, mainly because I've heard people mention it a few times. Unfortunately I'm not impressed.

The biggest problem here is that I have no idea where he draws some of his ideas about Buddhism from. For example:

The teaching of the Buddha, on the other hand, enjoins a reverent and non-violent attitude not only to all sentient beings but also, with great emphasis, to trees. Every follower of the Buddha ought to plant a tree every few years and look after it until it is safely established, and the Buddhist economist can demonstrate without difficulty that the universal observation of this rule would result in a high rate of genuine economic development independent of any foreign aid. Much of the economic decay of southeast Asia (as of many other parts of the world) is undoubtedly due to a heedless and shameful neglect of trees.

What is he talking about? I have yet to read or hear about trees being sentient beings. Chopping down a tree isn't prohibited except for monks, but monks aren't supposed to cut any plant.

There is a tradition of planting Bodhi trees and tree groves, as the Buddha was enlightened under a tree. The Tipitaka mentions trees many times, and monks would usually live in forests and groves. Trees are good, but everyone knows that. Still, it seems like he's going off into lala land, almost suggesting that brahma-vihara is especially practiced toward trees. Also, I'm a bit unclear on how economic problems in Asia, even in 1966, were mostly related to trees, and he doesn't cite any sources.

Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the most meticulous concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be attainable on this earth, there is nonetheless an ineluctable duty on man to aim at the ideal of non-violence in all he does.

Waste is bad, but it's a bit extreme to call it "violence." The main thing that's frustrating me with this essay is that he doesn't cite any references to any Buddhist writing at all, canonical or otherwise. All of his citations are to modern western writings, and he seems to be just making some stuff up regarding Buddhism.

So overall, reading this was a total waste of time. It contains nothing but fluffy commentary on sustainability and non-materialistic quality of life being in conflict with productivity, which is not necessarily the case, along with attempts to support this with a few vague and suspect references to Buddhism.

I think the whole essay could be summed up as: Buddhism says do good things and be non-materialistic. I say do good things and be non-materialistic. Therefore, what I say is "Buddhist."

Furthermore, a bunch of his claims are suspect. While I agree that relying on non-renewable resources is generally bad, I have a hard time buying that using non-renewable resources is "violence" of some sort, especially when the non-renewable resources aren't even alive. Other than some traditions involving trees, I don't know how Buddhism especially preaches non-violence toward trees.

Overall this essay looks like an attempt to co-opt Buddhism in order to push his own ideas, and he didn't even do a good job tying them to Buddhism.